Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

INTERNATIONAL TIN COUNCIL

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) (Amendment) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (BARMSTON-COXGREEN FOOTBRIDGE) BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Polesworth Secondary Modern School, Warwick

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what steps are being taken to provide specialist teachers at the Polesworth Secondary Modern School in the County of Warwick.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): The staffing of individual schools is the responsibility of the local education authority.

Mr. Moss: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the overall shortage of teachers at this school, there is a shortage of specialist teachers which may make the new technical and commercial course impossible to develop? Will the Minister ask the education authority to let him know what steps it is taking to make the specialist teachers available by September next?

Sir E. Boyle: I know very well that the country as a whole is short of teachers of specialist subjects, but recruitment to specialist training colleges has improved and more third year supplementary courses are being provided. I am sure that the local education authority will do all it can to fill the vacancies at this school, but I do not think that I can ask it to give it special preference.

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he will cause phase 3 of new building at the Polesworth Secondary Modern School to be completed at the same time as phase 2, in view of the increasing numbers of pupils at the school.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. The building work already approved will be sufficient for the numbers of pupils expected.

Mr. Moss: Will not the number of pupils increase by over one hundred by September next, and is the Minister aware that phase 2 of this programme includes


only one classroom in a school where the majority of the classrooms are already too small?

Sir E. Boyle: The third phase of building work would replace the old premises now being used by the secondary school and enable them to be used by the primary school. This would be a desirable improvement, but it is not within my noble Friend's present building policy. If the number increases more than expected, this matter can certainly be reconsidered.

Technical Education, Warwickshire

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what provision exists for technical education in the Atherstone, Polesworth, Wilnescote and Kingsbury areas of the County of Warwick; and what steps are being taken to provide technical courses at the Polesworth Secondary Modern School.

Sir E. Boyle: Technical education is provided at Sutton Coldfield Institute of Further Education, at Nuneaton Technical College and School of Art and at a number of evening institutes. At Polesworth County Secondary School courses in engineering, agriculture, commerce and dressmaking are about to be started.

Mr. Moss: Is the Minister aware that there is no provision in this area for secondary technical education, and does he consider that his duties under the Education Act, 1944, which instruct him to provide a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area, have yet been fulfilled in this area?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that the hon. Member is a little too gloomy about this matter. In addition to what I have mentioned, some students also attend technical colleges at Birmingham, Coventry, Tamworth and Hinckley; and an engineering workshop and a drawing office are at present being built in the Polesworth Secondary Modern School. Secondary schools in the area provide a wide range of courses, but my noble Friend does not ask local education authorities to provide exact details about individual schools.

University of Wales (State Studentships)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education how many State studentships in arts and science, respectively, have been granted to students in each of the four constituent colleges of the University of Wales.

Sir E. Boyle: My Department is concerned only with postgraduate State studentships in arts subjects. The process of making these awards cannot be completed until all the candidates' degree results are known.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that the University of Wales will be no worse off in regard to these State studentships now that they are granted by the Ministry of Education and not by the university authorities in Wales?

Sir E. Boyle: At this stage I cannot forecast what the final number of successful candidates from the University of Wales will be for my Department's awards, but I will bear in mind the point that the hon. Member has made.

Building Programme, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what proposals have been submitted to him for enlarging the school-building programme for the excepted district of Newcastle-under-Lyme, in the light of the increasing population and development of new housing estates.

Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend has approved for starting in 1958–59 two of the eight projects for Newcastle-under-Lyme submitted to him by the Stafford-shire local education authority. The other six could not be justified as requiring to be started in that year to meet the needs to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary kindly explain what he means by "could not be justified"? Is he aware of the tremendous expansion of housing estates in Newcastle-under-Lyme, especially at Clayton, and the very great distance that children are now travelling to schools where there is considerable overcrowding? Will he reconsider this


matter? Is he aware that the need is very great in Newcastle-under-Lyme and that there is a slack in the building trade which could be taken up on this work?

Sir E. Boyle: The first of the six is to replace the existing school, that is, the Clayton Hall County Grammar School, and has no relation to the growth of population. As the hon. Member is well aware, we cannot replace old buildings until we have made further progress with providing places for the increasing numbers of children. A satisfactory case has not yet been made for the other five in view of the existing estimate of the future numbers of pupils, but some of them may well be approved for later years.

Grammar School Selection Tests, Buckinghamshire

Mr. Brockway: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the percentage of successes in grammar school selection tests in the rural areas of Buckinghamshire; and how this percentage compares with the average for the whole county.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Brockway: Would the hon. Gentleman obtain it? It is stated locally that the opportunities for children in the rural areas are less than 10 per cent. and in the urban areas 20 per cent., which means that the child in the town has twice the opportunity of getting into a grammar school that the child in the rural area has. Cannot the hon. Gentleman do something? Is he aware of the appalling conditions in schools in country areas, the insanitary buildings and the difficulties of getting teachers? Will not he look at the whole of this subject?

Sir E. Boyle: We have got on very well in recent years with the problem of re-organisation in getting rid of all-age schools in rural areas. I agree with the hon. Member that this is important, but he will recognise that the Buckinghamshire education authority could not provide this information without making a very lengthy analysis of individual classes. My noble Friend would not feel justified in asking the local authority to make the very detailed returns required.

School Meals, Sunderland

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the reduction in the number of children taking school meals in Sunderland since the recent increase in the cost of the meals.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information will not be available until local education authorities submit their annual return in October.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman try to get this information earlier? Is he aware that my information is that there has been a fall of about 10 per cent., which is really disastrous? Is it not time that the Government revised their policy and looked at the question again?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think that it would be right to add to the burden on local authorities by asking them to make a return more often than once a year.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is not this becoming a rather pressing question? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we had Questions last week which bore out that there is a relation between the cost of school meals and the falling off in the number of school meals taken?

Sir E. Boyle: I have, of course, noticed that there has been a number of Questions on the subject. The actual proportion of those taking school dinners in Sunderland has been declining steadily for some years, but we shall have the normal autumn report later this year and there will be ample opportunities for discussing the matter in the House when that return is available.

Secondary Schools (Building Programme)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education to what extent the secondary school building programme still lags behind the basic needs of the children.

Sir E. Boyle: The provision of Secondary school places is in general keeping pace with the growth in the number of senior pupils.

Mr. Swingler: Would the hon. Gentleman make a tour of the country to check on this? Is he aware that in many parts of the country secondary schools are


terribly overcrowded and children are being taught in classes of over 40 and 50? Is he aware that there are very grave discrepancies between proposals made to the Ministry by the local authorities and the number that the Minister approves? Since there are unemployed building workers in the country, will the hon. Gentleman seriously consider accelerating this building programme?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member has another Question on this theme. In 1956 the number of school pupils increased by 120,000. The number of school places increased by 130,000, and over 300,000 secondary school places are at present under construction.

Size of Classes

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what are his latest figures of secondary classes of over 50, over 40, and over 30 pupils, respectively.

Sir E. Boyle: The figures for January, 1957, will be available in the autumn. In January, 1956, in schools maintained and assisted by local education authorities there were 38,940 senior classes with more than 30 pupils. Of these 4,181 classes had more than 40 pupils and of these again 64 had more than 50.

Mr. Swingler: Is it now the Minister's policy to reduce the size of secondary classes to a maximum of 30 pupils? Does that remain the policy of the hon. Gentleman's Department If so, what will he do to enlarge the school building programme as well as to recruit more teachers, so as to get rid of the very large number of over-sized classes?

Sir E. Boyle: As I have explained on several occasions in the House, our prime aim during the last few years has been to cut down the size of classes in primary schools. We believe that that improvement can be maintained without effecting adversely the size of classes in secondary schools. My noble Friend is confident that in the next few years the increase in the number of teachers will be fully sufficient to match the increase in the number of children, but he hopes that as the numbers in the primary schools fall some primary school teachers will be willing to take jobs in secondary schools.

Elementary School Pupils (Grammar School Places)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what percentage of the children attending elementary schools in England and Wales entered grammar schools in each of the years 1946, 1951 and 1956.

Sir E. Boyle: In January, 1956, the proportion of 13-year old pupils in England and Wales in grammar schools maintained and assisted by local education authorities, or in the grammar streams of bilateral or multilateral schools, or holding places at direct grant grammar schools or at independent schools for which local education authorities were responsible, was 20·8 per cent. I cannot give exactly comparable figures for 1946 and 1951, because all the necessary statistics were not collected until 1954, but the available information suggests that the proportion increased very slightly over the period.

Dr. Broughton: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether his attention has been drawn to some shocking propaganda issued by his political party, in which it is stated that there are better educational opportunities for children under a Tory Government than under Socialism? Does not the hon. Gentleman think it very wrong that such propaganda should be published in the Press? Will he use his influence with his party chiefs to refrain from publishing the portraits of nice-looking children, who are probably the children of Socialists in any case, in this propaganda? If the hon. Gentleman must publish portraits, why not publish a portrait of the Cabinet and let the electorate see the horrible truth for themselves?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not see how that supplementary question arises from this Question, but since the hon. Member has given me the opportunity to mention that there has been great educational progress under this Government, I am very pleased to do so.

Mr. M. Stewart: Has the hon. Gentleman also noticed that in this propaganda there is a very unworthy and contemptuous reference to comprehensive schools, which will be rightly resented by the people who work in them?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot debate comprehensive schools in answer to this Question. I made a statement on 5th April, which represented Government policy and gave general satisfaction in the House.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we are looking forward to more grammar school places under the Conservative Party in the northern region and when are they going to come along? May I have an answer, please?

Sir E. Boyle: I was not sure that my hon. Friend's question arises out of this one—

Dame Irene Ward: That does not matter. I want an answer.

Sir E. Boyle: But if she will look at the figures she will find, as I have said, that there has been substantial progress in all departments of education during the past five years.

Teachers (Training Period)

Mr. Short: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what consultations he is having with the teachers and the universities with a view to giving university status to the three-year training period.

Sir E. Boyle: None, Sir.

Mr. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who are concerned about this matter feel that for the three-year training period to be really valuable it should confer some kind of university status on the teacher? Will he not at least consider the suggestion, which I made when he announced the three-year period, that there should be some arrangement between the training colleges and the universities so that the period confers some university status, either in the way of a first degree in education or something else? Is he aware that there is nothing that would raise the status of the teaching profession more than for it to become a graduate profession, and that this is the opportunity?

Sir E. Boyle: All these matters will be considered, but the three-year course at the training colleges will be good enough to stand on its own feet without

having to call itself something else. We intend that the three-year training course shall justify itself on its own merits, though I will certainly bear in mind the points which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Colonial Territories (Assistance)

Dr. King: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education if he will introduce legislation to enable local education authorities to assist in the provision of teachers or schools or equipment in the Colonies.

Sir E. Boyle: The provision of teachers, schools and equipment in Colonial Territories is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governments of the individual territories. But the Government attach great importance to encouraging British teachers, and especially teachers of English, to take up posts in the Colonies, as well as certain other posts overseas. The Government's proposals were described in the White Paper on the Overseas Information Services and the local education authorities' and teachers' associations have been asked to co-operate in making a success of these measures.

Dr. King: While thanking the Minister for the very sympathetic reply on the principle of the Question, may I ask if he is aware that the crying need of the Colonies is for school places and for teachers, that it is our moral duty to assist the impoverished Colonies to provide these facilities for children, and that probably a number of British local education authorities would be willing to lend a hand by the provision of a teacher or a school if the Minister would make such provision legal?

Sir E. Boyle: The main purpose of the proposals in the White Paper is to give teachers going overseas confidence that their career prospects when they return to this country will not be impaired. These proposals will not require legislation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are bearing all these points in mind.

Teachers (Superannuation)

Dr. King: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether, in view of the fact that the


Government propose to discontinue National Service, he will introduce legislation so as to permit teachers who have done National Service before entering their teaching career to count this Service for superannuation purposes.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. It is a long standing principle of public service superannuation schemes that National Service should count for pension purposes only if it interrupts civil employment.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that this grievance has been accentuated since the granting of equal pay, and does he think it right that men who have done National Service, as contrasted with women or conscientious objectors, should be perpetually at a financial disability because they have served their country voluntarily?

Sir E. Boyle: We should think very hard before departing from this principle which, after all, was most recently laid down in the Superannuation Act, 1948. Any concession for National Service would also have repercussions affecting those engaged in war service before entering on their civil employment in the public service.

Grammar School Places, Middlesex

Mr. Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education how the percentage pass mark required for entry to grammar schools after this year's 11-plus examination in the north-west Middlesex division compares with that required for the remainder of the county; and what qualifications, other than examination results, were taken into account before deciding which of the marginal cases should be included in the grammar schol entry.

Sir E. Boyle: The qualifying mark in the written examination is the same for north-west Middlesex as for the rest of the county. In addition, school records, teachers' opinions and any exceptional circumstances are taken into account in marginal cases.

Mr. Beswick: In so far as the school records are all pretty much the same and all children receive a recommendation from the head teacher, does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that this process of selecting almost arbitrarily one or

two out of the marginal cases was bound to lead to the unhappiness we have seen amongst parents and children since the last lot of examinations?

Sir E. Boyle: As I have said many times, we are doing all we can all the while to improve our methods of selection, and we are not afraid of experiments. Equally, it would be wrong to abandon the principle of selection because of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the approximate percentage of children in England who sit for the 11-plus examination and who gain entry to grammar schools; and the comparative percentage of children who sat for this year's examinations in the north-west Middlesex division and the West Drayton schools, respectively.

Sir E. Boyle: In January, 1956, the proportion of thirteen-year-old pupils in England in grammar schools maintained and assisted by local education authorities, or in the grammar streams of bilateral or multi-lateral schools, or holding places at direct grant grammar schools or at independent schools for which local education authorities were responsible, was 20·1 per cent. The information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Beswick: As a matter of fact, I did get some figures in a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, though they referred to the year before. Would he not agree, if he makes further investigation, that the percentage coming from that part of Middlesex is much lower than the remainder of Middlesex or of the country? Would he look into the matter again and find the reason?

Sir E. Boyle: The corresponding figure for Middlesex as a whole was 25 per cent., as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. My noble Friend does not keep statistics for parts of local education authority areas, and I do not think it would be right to ask the local authorities to provide these.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the total number of grammar


school places available within the northwest Middlesex division; and what percentage this represents of the total number of children who sat this year for the 11-plus examination.

Sir E. Boyle: This information is not available. Many children who live in the north-west Middlesex division attend grammar schools outside it.

Mr. Beswick: Nevertheless, there is a very strong feeling in Middlesex that why there is such a smaller percentage of children going to the grammar schools from this area is because grammar school places are not available in this district. If that is not the reason, there must be some other. Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think it worth while to look at the breakdown of these figures to discover what is the trouble?

Sir E. Boyle: We ought to be careful about sub-dividing a local authority area, since that would lead to all kinds of difficulties. When a particular local authority does not seem to have a sufficient share of grammar school places for the whole of the local authority area, then on numerous occasions—and I have quoted some in the House before now—we try to adjust the figure of the building programme. But to try to sub-divide an area for which a local authority is responsible would give rise to great difficulties.

University Grants and Awards (Means Test)

Dr. Stross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he will make a statement in the near future on the abolition or modification of the parental means' test, which applies to grants and awards made to university entrants; and whether he will give an assurance that any modifications will operate from the academic year beginning this autumn.

Sir E. Boyle: This would require amending legislation and there is no present prospect of this.

Dr. Stross: Does that mean that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend the noble Lord are unaware of the tremendous burden placed upon parents who are on salary scales, such as civil servants, particularly if they have more than one child at one of the older

universities, which is something that can and does happen?

Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend dealt with this matter exhaustively in a debate in another place on 22nd May. He has arranged for a working party, consisting of officers of his Department and representatives of the local authority associations, in consultation with representatives of the universities, to examine the arrangements for assessing university awards.

Dr. Stross: May we have at least an assurance on the second part of the Question, namely, that if a decision is reached, the decision will become active, as it were, from this autumn?

Sir E. Boyle: I would not ask the hon. Gentleman for a moment to expect any legislative changes by this autumn, but the working party will hold its first meeting on 25th July. It will confine its attention to adjustments within the framework of the existing arrangements, and will not deal with more fundamental issues, such as the abolition of the means test. Any detailed changes in the existing arrangements will come into effect in the autumn of 1958.

Building Projects (Grouping)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what progress he is making in persuading local authorities to establish regional school building groups, with a view to reducing costs particularly in the purchase of building materials and the employment of professional and technical staffs.

Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend will shortly be discussing with a number of local education authorities the possibility of grouping some of their building projects with a view to obtaining favourable terms for certain building components.

Mr. Moyle: When this matter is being further considered, will the Parliamentary Secretary and his noble Friend consider extending what I think is an excellent idea, not only for the purposes of pooling the purchase of building materials and the employment of technical staff, but also heavy mechanical equipment, such as excavators?

Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend welcomes the initiative of local education authorities in this matter. It is rather too early to say whether it will prove to be of wider application.

English-speaking Countries (Comparative Education)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what steps he is taking to encourage the provision of facilities for teachers and students for the study of comparative education in English-speaking countries and in the Commonwealth particularly; and if he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: Comparative education is primarily a field of university study at the post-graduate level and any question of developing it is a matter for the university authorities.

Mr. Moyle: In connection with this idea, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in conjunction with his noble Friend, to use what influence they have to foster the idea by establishing a centre here for the study of comparative education, particularly in the Commonwealth, with a view to strengthening Commonwealth ties within this cultural field, and also replenishing our stock of educational ideas from Commonwealth sources?

Sir E. Boyle: It is worth remembering that about 200 teachers each year go from the United Kingdom on exchange to Commonwealth countries and the United States, under arrangements sponsored, and to a considerable extent financed, by my Department, and they thus have direct experience of education in those countries.

Rural Areas, Berkshire

Mr. Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the percentage of children over eleven years old who attend all-age schools in Berkshire, compared with the national average; and what further progress is being made in providing secondary modern school places in the county.

Sir E. Boyle: In January, 1957, the proportion in Berkshire was 15·3 per cent.: the figure for England and Wales is not yet available, but in January, 1956, it was 8·2 per cent. Over 2,000 more secondary modern school places in Berkshire are likely to be taken into use

by the end of next year, and work on schools providing a further 4,500 will start between now and March, 1959.

Mr. Hurd: Can my hon. Friend tell us when all the children in Berkshire will have the opportunity of going to either a secondary modern school or a grammar school?

Sir E. Boyle: I think the figures that I have given are encouraging. The programme of building for rural re-organisation will greatly reduce the proportion of Berkshire children in all-age schools during the next few years. All but two of the new schools needed to complete rural re-organisation in Berkshire have been approved by my noble Friend for starting between now and March, 1959.

Mr. Remnant: How many of the additional places come from new towns, where there is increased population?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot answer that without notice, but I would ask my hon. Friends to study the figures which I have given, for I think they are encouraging.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the percentage of children attending primary schools in the rural areas of Berkshire who now qualify for and receive grammar school education compared with children attending primary schools in Reading, Newbury and other towns in the county.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Hurd: Would it not be well to take a sample as between village areas and town areas, because there are many parents who feel that their children do not have the advantages of those who happen to be brought up in towns?

Sir E. Boyle: I know the feeling on this matter—we had it expressed on an earlier Question—but I rather doubt whether a sample would be helpful and of real value.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider getting information about rural areas? Obviously, a number of hon. Members are interested in the matter, which is one of concern throughout the country. I think that the hon. Gentleman, if he tries, could make a


general survey of the opportunities for grammar school education in rural areas compared with those in urban areas.

Sir E. Boyle: It would be a much more lengthy and arduous task than the hon. Gentleman imagines, and I do not think my noble Friend would feel justified in asking authorities to make the detailed returns which would be required. I can tell the House that in January, 1956, the proportion of thirteen-year-old pupils in Berkshire as a whole attending grammar schools maintained by local education authorities or direct grant grammar schools was 24·4 per cent., and the corresponding figure for Reading County Borough was 15·9 per cent.

Maintenance Allowances

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he will give an estimate of the total cost of the adoption by local education authorities of the scales of educational maintenance allowances described in his Department's Circular 327.

Sir E. Boyle: If all local education authorities adopted the scales the estimated total annual cost would probably be between £2 million and £2½ million as compared with a present expenditure of about £1 million.

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he will revise Ministry of Education Circular 327 so as to make it conform with the recommendations of the Working Party on Educational Maintenance Allowances.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.

Mr. Stewart: Can the hon. Gentleman say why he will not accept the full recommendations of the Working Party? Does he remember that the Working Party said that it could not conscientiously recommend any economies—that is, scales less than that which it had proposed—without there being the risk of a significant loss to the education of the child?

Sir E. Boyle: The matter was, of course, very fully considered. My noble Friend felt he could not accept fully, as a basis for expenditure from public funds, all the assumptions embodied in the Working Party's Report, and in deciding

to approve lower maximum allowances he naturally had regard to the Government's other commitments and the need for ensuring that additional expenditure is directed towards meeting the most urgent needs. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in the present economic climate, to have secured an increase of expenditure in respect of maintenance allowance of even that order was something not to be despised.

Library Service (Future)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what steps he has taken to appoint the Committee to consider the future of the library service as proposed in the Local Government White Paper, Command Paper 161; and what interests he proposes to have represented on the Committee.

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad to say that Mr. S. C. Roberts, Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, has agreed to act as Chairman of this Committee. The names of the other members will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Irving: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a very deep cleavage of opinion in the Library Association about the size of authority which ought to be allowed to maintain a library service, that this led to the rejection of a resolution put forward by the council of the association at its annual conference, the subsequent carrying of it on a postal ballot, and the subsequent rejection of it in the following year, and that that in itself led to the formation of a Smaller Libraries Association? While I do not wish to encourage parochialism, might I point out that this is an Association which is worthy of a hearing?

Sir E. Boyle: I have heard details of the points to which the hon. Member has referred. The intention is that the Committee should be representative of the local authorities and professional bodies mainly concerned with the public library service, as well as of other interests connected with it.

Grammar and Technical Schools (Admissions)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the percentage national


averages of children admitted to grammar and technical schools over the last four years; and what he estimates these will be during the next four years.

Sir E. Boyle: As the Answer to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The proportions have remained virtually constant during this period and my noble Friend hopes that in general they will be maintained.

Mr. Irving: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my Question, which asked for an estimate about the future?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think it would be possible for me to give an estimate about the future, because these are, after all, largely matters for the individual local authorities. However, my noble Friend has always said in his speeches that he believes the proportion of children selected for grammar or technical schools ought to be aproximately 25 per cent., adding the two together. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will find that my hon. Friend's proportion has on the whole been maintained during the last few years.

Mr. Chetwynd: When the block grant replaces the specific education grant, what guarantee will there be that this can be maintained? Will not the disparity be likely to increase?

Sir E. Boyle: We shall have an opportunity of debating the general grant in the near future.

Following is the information:


PERCENTAGE OF 13-YEAR-OLD PUPILS ATTENDING SCHOOLS MAINTAINED BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES OR HOLDING FREE PLACES AT DIRECT GRANT AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS




Grammar (including direct-grant and independent)
Technical*


January, 1953
…
20·9
5·2


January, 1954
…
21·5
5·4


January, 1955
…
21·2
5·5


January, 1956
…
20·8
5·4


* Based on 14-year olds.

Holy Trinity School, Cookham

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what steps he is taking to avoid further delay in the building of two

new classrooms at Holy Trinity School, Cookham, Berkshire.

Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend approved the plans in February, 1957, and it is for the local education authority to carry them out. I understand that it is now doing all it can to get work started quickly.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Is my hon. Friend aware that the discussions about the extensions to the school have been going on for the last eighteen months, that building has not yet begun, and that the present accommodation is most insanitary and unsatisfactory, for a number of reasons which he knows very well? Does he not agree that urgent emergency action should be taken?

Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend approved the plans last February. I hope that the Question and Answer will draw the attention of all concerned to the importance of getting the work started quickly. One lesson that I draw from looking at the relevant papers is that it is a mistake for firms of architects, however proficient, to take on more work than they can really plan in the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Engineering Goods and Civilian Aircraft (Export)

Mr. Brockway: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to supply Colonial and Commonwealth countries with machine tools, engineering goods and civilian aircraft in view of redundancy in industries affected by the curtailment of defence work.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I do not accept the assumption that the curtailment of defence orders will lead to serious unemployment. Exports to Commonwealth countries, including the Colonies, of the products referred to have increased in recent years, and exporters have available to them the services offered by the Board of Trade and the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Mr. Brockway: Did the right hon. Gentleman note the statement of the Minister of Supply this week that 7,000 workers are likely to be made redundant


in the Royal Ordnance factories during the next two and a half years? Is he aware that at Blackpool and at Langley in my constituency the Hawker works have been entirely closed down, and as these factories can be used to produce exactly the goods for which there is a crying need in the Colonies and the Commonwealth, will he consult his fellow Ministers and try to meet the needs in this way?

Sir D. Eccles: There is a very heavy load on the engineering industries at this moment. It is the Government's belief that men released from the defence contracts will readily find other work. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for instance, the last figure for unemployment was half of 1 per cent.

Motor Cars (Imported Steel)

Mr. Edelman: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of steel imported from the United States of America in 1956 for the manufacture of motor cars.

Sir D. Eccles: In 1956, total imports from the United States of uncoated steel sheet, the bulk of which was used by the motor car manufacturers, were valued at £7,236,598.

Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently a British motor firm, a major importer of dollar steel, concluded a barter agreement with Norway in order to exchange about £300,000 worth of motor cars for Norwegian sprats? Is that the way to deal with the dollar problem?

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman may have seen a number of Questions and Answers on that subject. I think it was finished motor cars which were exchanged for Norwegian silds.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures of steel imports from Canada in the same period?

Sir D. Eccles: Not without notice.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be better to import considerably thicker steel plate from dollar countries for shipping than this steel for the motor car industry, which involves the cost of processing and, thus, a greater dollar expenditure?

Sir D. Eccles: That is a question which I think should be addressed to the Paymaster-General, who is responsible for steel supplies.

Exports to Poland and Bulgaria

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases the exceptions procedure has been applied to the export of embargoed goods to Poland and Bulgaria, respectively; and what were the goods, amounts and values involved.

Sir D. Eccles: Since the revision of the lists in August, 1954, we have granted one hundred and fifty-one licences for embargoed exports to Poland and four for embargoed exports to Bulgaria. In almost all cases the goods involved were goods in the metals and chemical groups. All but ten were for values of less than £40; and where the values were greater all were for spare parts for equipment previously supplied from this country.

Sir L. Plummer: May I assume from that answer that the President of the Board of Trade will continue to use his maximum efforts to free trade with these countries as he did trade with China?

Sir D. Eccles: That is rather a different question. These are exceptions for goods on the embargo list, and we have said that these have to be rare and only trifling in amounts.

Sir L. Plummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay attention to the revision of the embargo list?

Sir D. Eccles: Not for the time being.

Trade with U.S.S.R.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assistance is being given to British manufacturers desirous of trading with Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to enable them to accept orders from outside the planned sector of the Soviet economy;
(2) what assistance is being given to British manufacturers desiring to trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to distinguish between orders placed outside the Soviet planned economy, and those offered from within the planned economy.

Sir D. Eccles: There may be some misunderstanding. My right hon. Friend suggested in his letter to Mr. Bulganin that Soviet trading agencies might be given more freedom to place orders for goods for which no specific provision had been made in their planning. But this would not involve any question of placing orders outside the Soviet planned economy and British manufacturers would not be called upon to make the kind of distinction the hon. Member suggests.

Sir L. Plummer: Can the President put it to his right hon. Friend that it is ludicrous to establish such a prerequisite for trade with the Soviet Union? Would he break it gently to the Prime Minister that the Soviet Union economy is a controlled economy and that the British trader is not concerned with whether he is selling inside or outside a planned economy? What he wants to do is to trade with Russia.

Sir D. Eccles: I think that is well understood. My right hon. Friend had in mind an increase in consumer goods which were not on the lists which were exchanged when Mr. Bulganin came here.

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government are now operating the procedure for making exceptions to the strategic embargo on United Kingdom exports to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Sir D. Eccles: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer given on 13th May by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Jay: Is it not a fact that the exceptions procedure applies to trade with the whole Soviet bloc and China?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.

Daimler Company

Mr. Edelman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, following the disagreements between the shareholders of the Daimler Company, which have resulted in a decline in trade and the threatened dismissal of 1,000 workers, he will set up under Section 165 (b, iii)

of the Companies Act a committee of inquiry in order to investigate the company's affairs.

Sir D. Eccles: I see no reason for an investigation under the Companies Act. I am informed that the figure of 1,000 mentioned by the hon. Member is much exaggerated.

Mr. Edelman: While I recognise that the inquiry may have to be postponed until the next Labour Government comes into power, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Daimler workers in my constituency believe that they have become the victims of an irresponsible feud between shareholders of the company? Further, is he aware that the company, with its famous name, is threatened today with extinction, and will he take action now, or does he intend to wait until another North American company takes control of a leading British firm?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are under a misapprehension. The Daimler Company intends to continue making cars. What it has done is to rationalise the number of models.

European Free Trade Area

Mr. Cronin: asked the President of the Board of Trade what will be the Government's policy in regard to priority for Commonwealth trade in the forthcoming international discussions on a European Free Trade Area.

Sir D. Eccles: The Government's policy remains as stated in paragraph 14 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 72, dealing with the Free Trade Area. As the Prime Minister said recently, we do not believe that there is any contradiction between our determination that inter-Commonwealth trade should grow and our proposal for freer trade in industrial products in Europe.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind the Government's unwillingness to help Commonwealth investment and the economically abortive nature of the recent Commonwealth Conference, is there not a danger that the Government may fall between two stools and neither expand Commonwealth trade nor enter into the European Free Trade Area?

Sir D. Eccles: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about Commonwealth investment. The Government are very anxious to increase it, but we cannot invest a deficit. It is necessary, therefore, to earn and save more.

Trade with China

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade what advice he is giving, pending the determination of quotas, to British firms wishing to accept orders from China for goods on the quantitative control list.

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) to what extent the export quotas for goods on the quantitative control list for China, now being considered by the Paris Consultative Group, will be additional to those already applicable to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the countries of the Eastern bloc;
(2) if he will now define precisely the extent to which the global quotas for goods on the quantitative control list for China will represent a total quota to be shared by all countries which are members of the Consultative Group; and what safeguards he intends to introduce to ensure that the interests of British exporters are fully protected;
(3) if he expects to be in a position to report to the House on the recommendations made by the Paris Consultative Group to member Governments on the subject of export quotas for goods on the quantitative control list for China before the House rises for the summer Recess.

Sir D. Eccles: With permission I will answer this Question and Nos. 51, 52 and 53 together.

Mr. Rankin: Surely the President is not claiming that Question No. 40 is of the same type in any way as Questions 51, 52 and 53?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that when the hon. Gentleman hears my Answer he will see that it covers the point.
The quotas for China will be additional to those already applicable to trade with the countries of Eastern Europe.
As I informed the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 4th July, recommendations as to these quotas are due

to be made in the near future by the Paris Consultative Group. Our exporters' interests are looked after by our representatives on the Group.
The recommendations of the Group and the amounts of the quotas will be confidential. Exporters wishing to accept orders for goods on the quantitative control list should submit applications to the export licensing branch.

Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British firms are losing Chinese orders, particularly the largest orders for machine tools, turbo-generators and roller bearings, because they cannot state what quantity they may export? What is he doing about this?

Sir D. Eccles: All the countries of the Group are in the same position and I hope that before the end of the month we shall have the recommendations for these quotas.

Mr. Rankin: If I followed the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he did not answer the last part of Question 53 in which I asked him if there would be a statement before the House rises for the summer Recess. Can he say anything about that? Further, in the allocation of these quotas, can he tell us why it is that the United States of America, which is doing no trade at all with China, should have a voice in deciding the amount of trading that we are to do with China?

Sir D. Eccles: If the Group does make recommendations before the end of the month I shall be in a position to make a statement. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we work together with the United States in examining and checking on these controls, and I see no reason at all why we should not keep together.

Mr. Rankin: May I take it that the presence of the United States on Cocom indicates that the United States will share in the quotas and is ready now to trade with China?

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir.

International Trade Fair

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the advice given to him by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, he will make a statement on the future of


the British Industries Fair and on the possibility of organising an international trade fair in Great Britain.

Sir D. Eccles: I told the deputations from the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce that the future of this fair depends largely on the attitude of British industry towards an international fair in this country. The President of the Federation of British Industries agreed to sound his members on such a proposal. I am now waiting for this advice.

Mr. Irving: In considering the whole question of the future of the international trade fair, would the President bear in mind—and members of the Chamber of Commerce bear in mind—the need to associate the Colonies and the Commonwealth in this sort of enterprise?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that it probably is right that the fair, if it is to go on, must have an international character and therefore the Colonies and the Commonwealth would be associated with it; but I really must wait to get support from industry if the fair is to be continued.

Fruit and Vegetable Imports

Mr. Baldwin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the unfavourable balance of trade with the Argentine, and in view of our economic position generally, he will limit the importation of fruit and vegetables, since all necessary supplies can be obtained from home agriculture.

Sir D. Eccles: Most of the fruit and vegetables imported from Argentina are apples and pears which arrive here after the main home marketing season. Their import is already limited by a quota.

Mr. Baldwin: is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now no season for English apples is view of the immense number of apples which are gas stored and available during the whole of the twelve months? As we can grow these apples, is it necessary to import others?

Sir D. Eccles: I am inclined to agree that seasons do not matter as much as they did, and we will take that into consideration.

Mr. Beswick: When taking into consideration the question of limiting the

imports of this fruit, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at present the price of apples is quite outside the range of the ordinary housewife? In the tea room of the House of Commons, for example, small apples are being sold at 8d. each. In these circumstances, ought not he to allow some of this produce to come in from overseas?

Sir D. Eccles: We give very considerable quotas for eating apples. I imagine that this is a particularly difficult moment in the year, season or no season.

Mr. Baldwin: If there is any shortage world mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr.Beswick), we shall be only too pleased to supply it, if he will let us know his requirements.

Mr. Baldwin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that horticultural products are not taken into account at the Annual Farm Price Review and therefore do not qualify for guaranteed prices, he will increase the present tariff in order to give protection against subsidised foreign imports whether subsidised directly or indirectly.

Sir D. Eccles: If the horticultural industry feels there is a case for increased tariffs it can apply for them.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since there was an increase of tariffs, horticulture has had to stand one or two increases in wages, together with increases in the price of coal, and that the industry gets no protection from the Annual Price Review such as is afforded to other products? Does he not think that horticulture, which is an important industry, should have more protection?

Sir D. Eccles: It is open to the industry to make a case for a particular product and that case will then be examined on its merits.

RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (URANIUM PROSPECTORS)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister if he has now reached conclusions on methods by which the operations of small prospectors of uranium-bearing ores in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland can be co-ordinated.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have written to the hon. Member about this. I understand that the mining laws of the territories concerned ensure an orderly system of registration of licences and claims. Co-ordination among prospectors is a matter for the prospectors themselves.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I greatly appreciate the courteous and full letter which he sent to me? Will he consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies on whether registration alone is effective in preventing chaotic competition? For example, will he look at the rather similar position of the chaos in West Africa among diamond winners and encourage co-operative co-ordination, such as that now taking place in Ghana?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Member has said. I have taken a little trouble to look into the matter. The hon. Member will appreciate that mining laws are a matter for the South Rhodesian legislature. We are not responsible for them. The arrangements by which small lots are to be purchased by the Atomic Energy Authority should have some result in encouraging smaller prospectors and producers. When the hon. Member says that they should not scramble but be co-ordinated, the problem is where co-ordination approaches monopoly and where it avoids chaos, and that is one which they must try to settle themselves.

NUCLEAR TESTS (FOUR-POWER PROPOSALS)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the chief objection of Her Majesty's Government to the proposal that hydrogen-bomb tests should be suspended for two years.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government joined with the Governments of Canada, France and the United States in putting forward proposals according to which a suspension of nuclear tests would form part of a first stage disarmament agreement. We believe that this is the best way in which to make an advance and that if such an agreement can be reached the advance will indeed be considerable. If the right

hon. Gentleman means to refer to a two-year suspension of tests in isolation, without agreement on its relationship to other disarmament provisions, the objections of Her Majesty's Government to this were stated by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 11th July. We have had to consider the balance of courses most likely to put an end to a nuclear arms race. We have thought it best to proceed by stages. In formulating these proposals we have considered very carefully with out allies the period which would be just long enough to show whether, as we hope, the Governments concerned will fulfil all their pledges and whether other potential nuclear powers will agree to join in the suspension agreement, without, however, holding up the advance to a further stage of disarmament if this should prove possible.

Mr. Stokes: I am afraid that the Prime Minister has misunderstood the point of my Question. There has been considerable talk of a suspension for two years. Does not the Prime Minister agree that a suspension for ten months would be ridiculous, since the preparation of the tests takes all of that time, so that in fact there would be no suspension? Is he aware that because of that those of us who are anxious to see a suspension regard the proposal for a ten months' suspension as playing with the issue? Will not Her Majesty's Government agree to a suspension for two years?

The Prime Minister: I found it rather difficult to know from the form of the Question whether it was a matter of the suspension itself, or of the period of suspension. I had to make a long Answer because the matter of suspension is tied up in our proposals, rightly or wrongly—and the House will debate that next week—with a general advance to what we call the first period of disarmament—including some advance on conventional and some agreement to discuss the question of the cut-off of material. If it is a matter of two years or ten months, the reasons I have given are still valid, that ten months are a sufficient time to know whether the other negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily without putting ourselves in the position of having completely disbanded our scientific arrangements and our teams.


It will be time to know whether it is a genuine move forward and, therefore, whether that ten months can be extended to eighteen months, two years, or whatever might be a satisfactory period.

Mr. Stokes: The Prime Minister is well aware of my view of this matter. Does he not agree that the suggestion of a suspension for ten months is ridiculous and that anybody who knows anything about these problems knows that a ten months' suspension means nothing in these processes? What I want the Prime Minister to say is that Her Majesty's Government will agree to a two years' suspension, or state specifically why they insist on a suspension of only ten months.

The Prime Minister: Some of the right hon. Gentleman's premises are not correct.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the proposal of the Western Powers for a suspension of tests for ten months cluttered up with a whole series of other proposals, including political considerations, which are regarded as objectionable by the other side? If the Government are serious about disarmament—it can be only partial disarmament, because no more can be expected at the moment or for some time—should not the Government resile from a limited proposal for ten months?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with our allies, the Governments of Canada, France and the United States, have been generally regarded as wise and progressive proposals to deal with at least the first stage in this matter. However, I can see that it can be argued that we should try to deal with a still smaller stage. All that is to be debated at length next week. All I can say is that the proposal which we have agreed with our allies has been generally regarded as wise, as protecting our interests, and as testing whether there is a genuine desire by the Russian Government to move into the first stage of disarmament.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now satisfied that an internationally agreed ban on the production of nuclear weapons can be effectively enforced.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government believe that it is practicable to enforce effectively an internationally agreed ban on future production of fissile materials for weapons purposes if an adequate inspection system has been installed.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Prime Minister's reply cover the diversion of fissionable material from existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That is why I was careful, although the right hon. Gentleman's Question referred to the production of nuclear weapons, to say in my reply that we believed it was practicable, if we could get a sufficient degree of inspection, to operate a ban on the production of fissile materials; but we must admit that it would not be possible to make a complete ban on the production of weapons, because that could be enforced only if the total past production of fissile material could be accounted for. In my view, that is not possible.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES (REPORT)

Sir P. Spens: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries.

The Prime Minister: The Report of the Committee has now been received by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who has presented it to Parliament today. Copies will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office immediately.
I am sure that the House will wish me to express their thanks to the Committee for its work.

Sir P. Spens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to very many people, both inside and outside the House? We are very grateful.

COAL MINING

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the need for an increase in the output of coal, if he will consider making a special broadcast appeal to the youth of the nation to take up coal mining as a career.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the compliment implied in the hon. Gentleman's Question, but the present methods of recruiting are doing very well, and I do not think that a special broadcast is needed.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that on Monday there are due to be answered at least twenty Questions from his supporters, calling attention to the need for an increased output of coal? Further, is he aware that these Members represent constituencies where the least number of recruits are coming in for the mining industry? In view of the fact that he may still have some little influence in such places as Bournemouth, does not he think that he should reconsider the position?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but I think that these Questions require rather careful handling. I am hoping that the question of the use of Hungarian refugees will be satisfactorily settled.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister what consultations were held with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers regarding the establishment of a military base in Kenya; and whether he can yet state the Government's policy regarding the establishment of this base.

The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to disclose what consultations have taken place between Commonweahh Prime Ministers beyond what is stated in the communiqué.
As regards the second part of the Question, I have no statement to make.

Mr. Stonehouse: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply, but is he aware that there is widespread alarm in Kenya at the prospect of this base being established there, and that that alarm is not confined to any one race? Would it not be advisable, before a decision is reached upon the establishment of this base, that consultations should be held in Kenya with the representatives of all communities?

The Prime Minister: I really do not know what all this is about. As far as I know, no decision of any kind has been

made. The expression "base" is altogether vague. All I know is that my right hon. Friend had discussions about the strength and disposition of our forces and that he will no doubt make an announcement when he feels that the time has come to do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 22ND JULY—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on the Roads Programme until 7 o'clock.

Afterwards there will be a debate on Colonial Coach Air Services.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Naval Discipline Bill.

Consideration of the Motion relating to the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation Accounts.

TUESDAY, 23RD JULY—Supply [24TH Alloted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Disarmament.

Second Reading of the Affiliation Proceedings Bill [Lords], and of the Housing Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.

WEDNESDAY, 24TH JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on the Scottish Health Services.

At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Supply Votes.

Consideration of the Motions relating to the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (Pakistan) Order and the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Amendment) Regulations, and similar Regulations for Scotland.

THURSDAY, 25TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Report.

Debate on the Economic Situation.

At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Agriculture Bill, which are expected to be received from another place at the beginning of next week.

Consideration of the Motions to approve the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) No. 2 Scheme and the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme.

FRIDAY, 26TH JULY—Further consideration of the Geneva Conventions Bill, if it is not completed Tomorrow (Friday).

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft West Indies (Federation) Order in Council.

We shall then consider any outstanding business, including Lords Amendments which may be received from another place, and make further progress with the several consolidation Measures now before the House.

If all the necessary business is disposed of it is hoped to adjourn for the Summer Recess on Friday, 2nd August.

I will make a statement later about the proposed date of reassembly in the autumn.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the White Paper on Disarmament will be available and, also, whether it is the intention of the Government that in the debate on the economic situation the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce the Government's proposals for dealing with inflation?

Mr. Butler: In answer to the second of the right hon. Gentleman's questions, I think that we must leave discretion in this matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The White Paper on Disarmament will, it is expected, be available in the Vote Office later today—about 6 p.m., I understand.

Mr. Shinwell: What is the reason for the undue haste to rush through all this business in the course of the next week? Is there anything in the rumour, which is current in many quarters, that the Goverenment are clearing the decks in the course of the next week or two and getting

rid of all the outstanding business as a prelude to a General Election?

Mr. Butler: The Government are carrying out their undertaking, as they have done during the last two years, to complete their business in the appointed time, and we propose that our business shall be completed—except for the normal, slight spill-over which occurs in the autumn—by 2nd August, which shows efficiency in management.
As regards the second matter, that is one especially at the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but it is the Government's intention to carry out their mandate and to fulfil their term of office.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the Leader of the House say whether he will arrange for a debate on Government Overseas Information Services, following publication of the White Paper, before we adjourn for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Butler: It does not look as if there is very much time but, in so far as there is any discretion in the matter, it lies with Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that, acting upon suggestion made yesterday by Mr. Speaker, about 60 Members of the House have tabled a Motion questioning the validity or propriety of the Attorney-General's execution of the statutory functions laid upon him? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether time will be found for the consideration of that Motion?

[That this House deeply deplores the refusal of Mr. Attorney-General to grant his fiat to enable John Willson Vickers to appeal against his conviction to the House of Lords, so as to establish on the highest judicial authority whether or not Section 1 of the Homicide Act effectively abolishes the doctrine of constructive malice and prevents a man from being liable to be convicted of murder who had no intention either to kill or to do grievous bodily harm, as the Government assured the House was its purpose during the debates on the Homicide Act.]

Mr. Butler: I have the Motion before me and I have read the names of the hon. Members who support it. I do not see any opportunity, in Government time, for a debate upon this Motion.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. If what amounts to a Motion of censure upon a member of the Government in respect of the discharge of his Ministerial duties is put upon the Order Paper, has it not been, for many many years, the business of the Government, or their constitutional duty, to provide time to debate that Motion?

Mr. Speaker: All I know about the matter of order is that the arrangement of business lies with the Government, except for Supply and other Opposition days, which are the prerogative of the Opposition.

Mr. Silverman: This is, by common consent, a matter of the gravest importance. There is considerable doubt whether the Court of Appeal has ever reached a valid decision, and there is involved here the administration by the Government of a Statute involving the immediate question of life and death. Are not we entitled, if we table a Motion of censure upon a member of the Government, to have the House of Commons determine whether the Motion is justified or not?

Mr. Speaker: It is really for hon. Members on both sides of the House to arrange these matters. I cannot intervene.

Mr. H. Hynd: The Leader of the House did not say anything about a proposed debate upon local government. We now have three White Papers in front of us. Can he say whether they will be discussed before we break up?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It is the intention that we shall have a full debate before we adjourn, and by a process of deduction that must be next week.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Leader of the House say whether it is the Government's intention to make a statement upon the reform of another place, before we adjourn?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing to say on that subject.

Mr. Mitchison: On the question of local government White Papers, three such White Papers were mentioned. There is also a fourth, in respect of Scotland. May I take it that all four will be discussed together, on one Motion?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; the problem of Scotland will be discussed at the same time as that of England.

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that discussion will take place on a Motion to take note of the White Papers, or on a Motion to approve the policy contained in them?

Mr. Butler: It will definitely take place on a Motion to take note, because one of the objects of the Government is to ascertain the views of the House of Commons on this subject now that the White Papers have been published.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the debate on disarmament which is to take place on Tuesday of next week, can the Leader of the House say when we are to have the White Paper on disarmament as was promised?

Mr. Butler: I have said, at 6 o'clock today.

Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the question of Royal Ordnance factories and the dismissal of workers at the Swynnerton factory — which is dislocating the economic life in that area—will be taken into account during the debate on the economic situation, or is the House to have an opportunity to debate the Government's policy on Royal Ordnance factories before the Recess?

Mr. Butler: We have no Government time available, but if the Opposition care to choose that subject it is a matter for them. I do not see that any subject would be excluded from the debate on the economic situation.

Mr. Snow: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have any plans to discuss the Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries, mentioned by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: It has just been published and I do not think we shall have an opportunity to discuss it immediately. It is a Report which will need careful study and, therefore, a little time given to studying it will not be a bad thing.

Mr. Allaun: May I ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been drawn to the Motion, signed by 151 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, urging


the Government to raise the basic old-age pension to £3 a week before the Recess? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that any one of us can go away for a Recess of nearly three months with an easy conscience, knowing that millions of our fellow countrymen are suffering real deprivation? When will there be a debate, and, more important, when will there be a pension increase?

[That this House urges the Government to raise the basic old-age pension to £3 a week before the Parliamentary Recess begins in August.]

Mr. Butler: The Government are, of course, fully aware of the gravity and importance of this problem, but I cannot make a statement at present and I cannot give any undertaking about a date before we rise.

POST OFFICE FINANCE

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
The Government have considered Post Office finances. Post Office wages have risen as a result of recent awards by the appropriate machinery. Some of the awards are retrospective and, in the aggregate, they are the largest in the history of the Post Office. The Post Office must increase its income by £42 million a year from 1st October next. This will be after making economies of £3 million a year. Eleven-twelfths of this additional bill is for Post Office wage increases.
The Government had three choices: first, to let the burden fall on the taxpayer; secondly, to drastically reduce Post Office services; or thirdly, to increase charges. The Government are unwilling either to pass the burden to the Exchequer, or to damage the services the Post Office provide for the community. Therefore, there must be increased charges.
To make up the £42 million we must raise £23 million from posts and £19 million from telecommunications. A comprehensive statement of the changes will he circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and for the convenience of Members copies will be available in the Vote Office

later this afternoon. Meanwhile, the House would now wish to know the main changes.
The basic inland letter rate will go up from 2½d. to 3d. Other inland postal charges will go up, including the postcard which will go to 2½d, and inland printed papers weighing more than 2 oz. Letters, printed papers and parcels to overseas will bear some increase, but not air mail.
Telecommunications
Telephone rental charges will be standardised all over the country; they will be £14 for business subscribers and £12 for residential subscribers. Free call allowances will be abolished, and the shared service concession will be increased to £2. Other charges, including private branch exchanges, connections and removals must also bear some increase. Ordinary local calls will go up to 3d., but from 1st January next this will be offset by a very big extension of the distance over which this charge will apply.
Overseas telegrams will be increased by about 40 per cent. The Commonwealth Press rate will remain at 1d. a word.
There will be no alteration in inland telegrams, the 4d, telephone call from a public box and long distance trunk charges for home and overseas.
These higher tariffs represent about 11 per cent, of the Post Office income. They are, as I have said before, almost wholly due to increased wages, imposed on the Post Office by wage movements outside.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions, but before doing so I should like to draw his attention to the fact that this is an addition to the £68 million increase in charges already imposed by the previous Tory Government and the present Government, and that with the increased charges now provided for, the figure will amount to over £110 million.
I am sure that these charges will cause consternation throughout the country when the full effect of them is realized—[HON. MEMBERS: "What would you do."] May I make it quite clear to the House that so far as increased revenue is required to pay wages, hon. Members on this side will support this? Wages payable in the Post Office ought to be comparable with wages paid outside.
But does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is showing a very bad example to outside industry, when there is all this talk about inflation, to put the whole of the wage increase on the charges—

Mr. H. Fraser: Come off it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: —instead of trying to absorb some of the increases within his own organisation? We are all being asked to keep prices down, but in this case the whole burden is being placed upon the consumer.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, will he tell the House what is the increase to be imposed on the private subscribers, what is the annual increase in that case, arid secondly, with regard to P.B.X., the private branch exchanges? The P.B.X. is the telephone connection to almost every factory and big business concern and I should like to know whether the rate of increase is likely to he in the region of 300 per cent.

Mr. Marples: That is a rather long series of supplementary questions to answer. Telephones in the provinces cost more to instal than telephones in London and, therefore, it is wrong that people should pay a reduced rental for them. At least, they should pay the same rental as in London from the point of view of economics, because the more we invest in telephones in the provinces the greater is the loss to the Post Office at the present rates. Therefore, in some residential cases there will be a £3 increase in rentals.
We have made economies amounting to £3 million—

Mr. Ness Edwards: Mr. Ness Edwardsrose—

Mr. Marples: If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient I will answer his questions in a shorter time than it took him to ask them.
The P.B.Xs will bear a considerable increase, but that relates mostly to businesses and not to residences. It varies according to whether it is two, three, four or five extensions that they have. I cannot give an average figure, because it would be misleading. The right hon. Gentleman will find details in the statement which I shall circulate. When he was Postmaster-General, the right hon. Gentleman never circulated such a statement.

Sir R. Grimston: Can my right hon. Friend say how these increases are likely to affect the retail price index and, further, how long he expects to be able to hold these charges at this present increased level?

Mr. Marples: The increase in the retail price index is negligible. It will be increased by one-tenth of 1 per cent. If there is reasonable stability in wage levels from now until March, 1959, no further general increases in Post Office tariffs are likely to be required during that time.

Mr. Hobson: For what surplus is the right hon. Gentleman budgeting? Do these increases account for any outstanding wage demands that are in process of negotiation?

Mr. Marples: I budgeted for a cumulative surplus of £5 million by 31st March, 1959. We have estimated that some of the wage awards that will be made in the future will be given on a basis pro rata to those already made in the past.

Mr. Grimond: As both Post Office policy and financial policy are directly under the control of the Government, may I ask how the Minister, in the last sentence of his original statement, can speak as though this highly inflationary increase were something over which the Government have no influence at all and were imposed on the Government by some evil agency entirely outside their control?

Mr. Marples: Wage awards are imposed by the appropriate body. They are not like wage awards recently made in outside industry. The Priestley Royal Commission was appointed in 1953, and, in 1955, said that wages in the Post Office and in the Civil Service should be brought into line with those in outside industry. That is why these increases are not comparable with those that have taken place in outside industry. I see no reason why the Post Office should attempt to hire its labour at a cheaper rate than outside industry.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are not these wage increases bound to take place because of the rise in the cost of living, which is the cause of the increases in the wages in other industries, and does this not show that it is not the fault of the Postmaster-General but the fault of the Government as a whole that we are to have these increased charges?

Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman will probably have an opportunity to deploy that case in full in the debate on the economic situation, but he is entirely wrong in thinking that these wage awards are comparable to those in outside industry. He should realise that they bring the Post Office into line with outside industry for the first time, that it is done by a Conservative Government and that the Socialist Government did not do it. Therefore, he is in error and, in my view, is doing a disservice to the trade unions concerned.

Captain Orr: By how much will the postal charges now be above the pre-war level and how do they compare with the rise in the cost of living generally since before the war? Secondly, in view of this prodigious bill for wages, what arrangements are being made in the Post Office for saving staff?

Mr. Marples: The present letter postage rate was fixed at 2½d. in 1940, when the basic wage of the postman was £3 3s. a week. The wage is now £9 17s. We are paying a postman more than three times what we paid in 1940, while there has been only a 20 per cent. increase in the stamp.
Mechanisation is a very difficult problem. We have in operation the most up-to-date electronic sorting machines in the world, and we have ordered an electronic wages-computer which is the biggest in this country and possibly in the world. But the House ought to realise that we cannot mechanise the job of the postman who delivers the letters. No electronic machine yet invented will walk down the drive and deliver the letters.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Postmaster-General aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House and, I assume, on the Government side, too, have come to the reasonable conclusion that if we are not to subsidise the Post Office and seriously reduce its efficiency and the scope of its services, no alternative is available to the Post Office and to the Postmaster-General?
Is he further aware that Post Office workers have been suffering from low wages for very many years in comparison with outside industry at a time when the Post Office was pumping £100 million into the Treasury in the form of surplus, and that if he had not authorised this increase, recommended by the Royal

Commission, and the increases evolving out of the increased cost of living, he would have found it physically impossible to staff and to recruit into the key positions in this big industry?

Mr. Marples: I thank the hon. Gentlemen and I agree with him. Wages ought to be raised to the level of outside industry, both in equity and because we would not otherwise get the men we require.

Mr. J. Rodgers: How do the increased charges compare with the charges borne by our foreign competitors?

Mr. Marples: I could not give all the figures, but our inland post is still cheaper than all European countries except Spain and Portugal. Our new rate will be 3d. per oz.; that for France is 5d. per ¾ oz., and for Italy 3d. per ½ oz. With few exceptions, our overseas rate will still be cheaper than the rest of the world. It will be 6d. per oz. against 8.6d. in France for oz., and 8·2d. in Germany for ¾ oz. Therefore, we shall not be handicapped.

Mr. Usborne: The Postmaster-General said, apparently with some satisfaction, that most of the burden of the increased telephone charges would fall upon industry. If that is so, is it not evident that industry will pass on the added expense in the cost of its goods, which will raise the cost of living and make outside wage demands inevitable, and that industry will then have to pay more wages? Is not this a silly circular process?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood my reply, which referred to the P.B.X.s, which are the exchanges used by industries. The bulk of the increase will come evenly from residential and business telephones. This was a particularly small section in which there is possibly the largest increase of all.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one in his senses accepts that the charges will be the cause of inflation, but that they are rather the consequence of inflation? Will he not fall into the trap of taking lessons in the causes of inflation from the Opposition, whose programme is the most inflationary thing we could imagine?

Mr. Marples: The relation between rises in costs and inflation is very arguable, and I am not sure that economists are all in agreement. We shall no doubt debate that matter later.

Following is the statement:

POST OFFICE FINANCE


PROPOSED TARIFF CHANGES


I.—POSTAL CHARGES


Category of correspondence or service

Present charges
New charges


INLAND AND TO IRISH REPUBLIC





1. Letters
…
2½d. for 2 oz. then 1½d. for 2 oz.
3d. for 1 oz. 4½d. for 2 oz. then 1½d. for 2 oz.


2. Postcards—





Single
…
2d.
2½d.


Reply Paid
…
4d.
5d.


3. Printed Papers. Samples
…
2d. for 4 oz. then 1d. for 2 oz.
2d. for 2 oz. 4d. for 4 oz. then 1d. for 2 oz.


4. Newspapers
…
2d. for 6 oz. then 1d. for 6 oz.
2½d. for 6 oz. then 1½d. per 6 oz.


5. Business Reply
…
½d. per item
1d. per item


6. Private Boxes and Bags
…
Various
Double Present Charges

Category of correspondence or service

Present charges
New charges


29. Inland Money Orders—





Advice of payment
…
3d.
6d.


30. Inland and Overseas Money Order—





Stop Payment
…
6d.
9d.


31. Telegraph Money Order Supplementary Fees—





Inland
…
3d.
6d.


Overseas
…
6d.,1s. or 75. 8d. (Cuba only)
1s. 6d.

(b) PRIVATE BRANCH EXCHANGE (PBX) AND EXTENSION RENTAL



Present
Proposed



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1. Private Manual Branch Exchange Rentals. Fixed annual payment for switching and power equipment—








Capacity not exceeding—








2 exchange lines and 4 extensions



8
0
0


3 exchange lines and 9 extensions



16
0
0


5 exchange lines and 20 extensions
Included in
32
0
0


15 exchange lines and 50 extensions
Rental for
64
0
0


20 exchange lines and 160 extensions
 Extensions
100
0
0


Each section of type CB 9 switchboard



100
0
0


Each section of type CB 10 switchboard



100
0
0


Each section of type 1A switchboard
15
0
0
100
0
0


2. Private Automatic Branch Exchange Rentals. Fixed annual payment for switching and power equipment—








Type No. 1—








Capacity not exceeding 30 extensions

200
0
0


Capacity not exceeding 50 extensions
£84 (plus share
280
0
0


Type No. 2—
 of rental of £6





Capacity not exceeding 30 extensions
 per extension)
240
0
0


Capacity not exceeding 50 extensions

320
0
0


Type No. 3
Various
To be assessed


Types other than Nos. 1, 2 and 3—








Capacity not exceeding 30 extensions
£84 (plus share of rental of
140
0
0


Capacity not exceeding 50 extensions
 £3 4s. to £6 per extension)
220
0
0


3. Extension (internal or external) connected to PBXs (manual or automatic)
2
14 to
0
2
14
0



6
0
0





(c) CONNECTION CHARGES—


Note.—Where several items of apparatus are ordered at the same time the connection charges levied will be the highest connection charge for any item concerned plus 50 per cent. of the connection charges for the remaining items.

Present
Proposed



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1. Standard exchange line connection charge
3
0
0
5
0
0


2. Transfer charge (exchange line)

7
6

15
0


3. Plan extensions

10
0
2–5
0
0


4. Each extension other than a plan extension

10
0
2
0
0


5. House Exchange System—








For each multiple station

10
0
5
0
0


For each non-multiple station

10
0
2
0
0


For each extension between a HES and a PBX

10
0
2
0
0


6. *Private Manual Branch Exchange (switching and power equipment)—








Capacity not exceeding:—








2 exchange lines and 4 extensions

4
0
0


3 exchange lines and 9 extensions
Included
8
0
0


5 exchange lines and 20 extensions
 in
16
0
0


15 exchange lines and 50 extensions
 Rental
32
0
0


20 exchange lines and 160 extensions
 for
50
0
0


Each section of type CB 9 switchboard
Exten-
100
0
0


Each section of type CB 10 switchboard
sions
100
0
0


Each section of type 1A switchboard

100
0
0

*When a PBX is replaced by one of larger size the connection charge to be levied will normally be 50 per cent. of that for the larger Exchange.

Present
Proposed



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


7. *Private Automatic Branch Exchange No. 1 (switching and power equipment)—








Capacity not exceeding 30 extensions

200
0
0


Capacity not exceeding 50 extensions

280
0
0


8. *Private Automatic Branch Exchange No. 2 (switching and power equipment)—






Capacity not exceeding 30 extensions
Included
240
0
0


Capacity not exceeding 50 extensions
 in
320
0
0


9. Private Automatic Branch Exchange No. 3 (switching and power equipment)—
 Rental for





Post Office-owned switching equipment—
Extensions





For every 50 extensions or part thereof

180
0
0


For each manual position

100
0
0


Subscriber-owned switching equipment—






For every 50 extensions or part thereof

30
0
0


For each manual position

15
0
0


(d) INTERNAL REMOVAL CHARGES—


Note.—Where the internal removal of several items is ordered at the same time the internal removal charges will be the highest charge for any one item, plus 50 per cent. of the aggregate of the removal charges for the remaining items.

Present
Proposed



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1. Exchange line telephone
1
0
0
2
0
0


2. Private Manual Branch Exchange (switching and power equipment)—
15s. per extension





Capacity not exceeding:—
(£3 minimum)





2 exchange lines and 4 extensions



2
0
0


3 exchange lines and 9 extensions



4
0
0


5 exchange lines and 20 extensions



8
0
0


15 exchange lines and 50 extensions



16
0
0


20 exchange lines and 160 extensions



25
0
0


Each section of type CB9 switchboard



50
0
0


Each section of type CB10 switchboard



50
0
0


Each section of type 1A switchboard



50
0
0


3. Private Automatic Branch Exchange No. 1 (switching and power equipment)—
15s. per extension (£3 minimum)





Capacity not exceeding 30 extensions



100
0
0


Capacity not exceeding 50 extensions



140
0
0


4. Private Automatic Branch Exchange No. 2 (switching and power equipment)—
15s. per extension (£3 minimum)





Capacity not exceeding 30 extensions



120
0
0


Capacity not exceeding 50 extensions



160
0
0


5. Private Automatic Branch Exchange (switching and power equipment)—
15s. per extension (£3 minimum)





Types other than Nos. 1 and 2:—








Capacity not exceeding 30 extensions



70
0
0


Capacity not exceeding 50 extensions



110
0
0


6. Private Branch Exchange extension—








On telephone

15
0
2
0
0


On socket
per telephone


7. Plan extensions
10s. to 30s.
 or socket


8. Minor miscellaneous apparatus
From 10s. to 30s.
From £1 to £3

*When a PBX is replaced by one of larger size the connection charge to be levied will normally be 50 per cent. of hat for the larger Exchange.

(e) CHANGES IN CALL CHARGES







Present
Proposed



s.
d.
s.
d.


1. Subscribers' local calls






Up to 5 miles

2½

3


From 5 to 7½ miles

5

6


From 7½ to 12½ miles

7½

9


From 12½ to 15 miles

10
1
0


2. Subscribers' trunk calls






Full rate—10.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.






15–20 chargeable miles

10
1
0


Cheap rate—6 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.






15–20 chargeable miles

10
1
0


20…25 chargeable miles

10
1
0


3. Call Office local calls






From 5 to 7½ miles

6

8


From 7½ to 12½ miles

9
1
0


From 12½ to 15 miles
1
0
1
3


4. Call Office trunk calls






Full rate—10.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.






15–20 chargeable miles
1
1
1
3


Cheap rate—6 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.






15–20 chargeable miles
1
1
1
3


20–25 chargeable miles
1
1
1
3


5. Coin box Subscribers' local calls (charge to subscriber)






From 5 to 7½ miles

5¼

7


From 12½ to 12½ miles

7⅞

10½


From 12½ to 15 miles

10½
1
1


6. Coin box Subscribers' trunk calls (charge to subscriber)






Full rate—10.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.






15–20 chargeable miles
l
0
1
2


Cheap rate—6 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.






15–20 chargeable miles
1
0
1
2


20–25 chargeable miles
1
0
1
2


7. Alarm calls






Ordinary subscriber

5

6


Call Office

6

8


Coin box subscriber

5¼

7

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered


That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock—[Mr. Health]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Heath.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRY IN SCOTLAND

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, having considered matters relating to industry in Scotland, takes note of the provision made for this purpose in the Estimates for the current year.
We have had a number of searching debates into the economic well-being of Scotland in recent years and many helpful suggestions have been offered by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have, however, had a good deal of party bickering in most of these debates—I am not blaming anybody, as I am just as blameworthy myself—and whether the debates have yielded anything helpful to Scotland is a matter on which I will not comment at present.
I go back to 1953, when a number of my hon. Friends made a very close study of the economic health of Scotland. They met a number of Ministers, I think all the Ministers with direct responsibility. They were courteously received, and very helpful discussions appear to have taken place. A very constructive approach was made all round. Then we had a two-day debate on the subject, in 1953.
In the course of that debate the then President of the Board of Trade, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
Scotland has 10·4 per cent. of the population, but she has 12·3 per cent. of all the new factory building which has gone on since the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1953; Vol. 517, c. 2091.]
I think that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to say to the House that Scotland had done well in the attraction of factory building and the provision of employment in the years after the war. Our complaint then was that Scotland had

been doing well when there was a Labour Government, but Scotland had not done so well since there had been a change of Government and in 1953, of course, the amount of factory building which had gone on in Scotland since the war was higher than Scotland's proportion of the total population. It was that kind of thing which led to a great deal of party bickering.
Speaking in the debate last year, the President of the Board of Trade, the present Chancellor, said:
It is two years since I spoke in a Scottish debate. Since then, there has been a marked improvement in Scotland's affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 676.]
Presumably, the Chancellor meant what he said. In his view, there had been a marked improvement in Scotland's affairs. Later in the same speech he talked of Scotland's
vigorous, growing and expanding economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 681.]
What concerns us so much is that Scotland's economy is not as vigorous as the economy of England. It is not growing nor expanding at the same rate, nor anything like the same rate, as the economy of the country as a whole. I should have thought that that would be a matter of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Minister of Labour, who, I understand, is to follow me in the debate this afternoon, has also expressed satisfaction that the employment trend in recent years has been in favour of Scotland. I remember putting a supplementary question to him following a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) on 30th May, when it seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was President of the Board of Trade, was much too easily satisfied with the economic situation in Scotland.
What is the position in Scotland as revealed by statistics one gathers from various publications of Her Majesty's Government? I take the years since this satisfaction was expressed with the position, the years in respect of which the Chancellor said there had been an improvement. Between 1953 and 1956, the total working population of Great Britain rose by 734,000. In the same period, the total working population in Scotland rose


by 43,000. Scotland can go ahead and boast about having provided 43,000 additional jobs, but the fact is that Scotland had only 5·8 per cent. of the additional jobs provided in the three years 1953–56.
We have one-third of the land area of Great Britain. Scotland is half the size of England and Wales put together. When President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor reminded us that we had 10·4 per cent. of the population—incidentally, our percentage goes down every year—but we got in the three-year period 5·8 per cent. of the new jobs provided. The increase in employment in Great Britain was 3·1 per cent. and in Scotland it was 1·8 per cent. In 1953, in Scotland, we had double the percentage of employment of Britain as a whole. One would have thought that we were going to do well and get more than 10 per cent. of the new employment created, but in point of fact we got 5·8 per cent. of the new jobs created since then. We may have been travelling fast, but not fast enough, because we are still losing.
If we had got the same percentage increase in employment as the Minister of Labour shows for Great Britain—not for the United Kingdom—3·1 per cent., 30,000 more jobs would have been provided. It would have taken those 30,000 more jobs provided in Scotland to enable us to keep our place and stand still. Inasmuch as we are that short of the average increase for Great Britain we have lost that amount of ground in that three-year period. Our share of the population as a whole has decreased correspondingly. In as much as we are still showing a percentage unemployment about twice the Great Britain percentage and were not showing a higher percentage than Great Britain over the three-year period, we still get about 5 per cent. of the additional jobs. That is clear evidence that Scotland is solving, or, at least, easing, her problem of unemployment by her workers coming south of the Border.
I have said this very often, and Ministers have never denied it, but they have made speeches which have given rise to the thought in Scotland that I have been talking through a hole in my hat. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or

deny that Scotland's unemployment position has only been held, eased or maintained at a reasonable level in recent years by the export of her workers? I wish that today the right hon. Gentleman would confirm or deny that. I think it is an indisputable fact. Since we have one-third of the land area of Great Britain, with an increase in population such as we have in the country as a whole, our share of the population should be increasing rather than decreasing.
I should also have thought that all the sociologists who talk about breaking up huge conurbations would have taken the same view and that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench would have taken the same view. I should have thought that a Government and Parliament which regularly and willingly spends many millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money to take people out of London, would, at the same time, take steps to prevent people coming into London, but they do not do so.
Factory building follows the same trend as the provisoin of additional jobs. The Chancellor, speaking three years ago, showed that since the end of the war we had had 12·3 per cent. of the new factories which had been built. I made speeches boasting about the new factory space provided between 1945 and 1951. That was true then. Many Conservatives talked about rigid and unnecessary control, how much better it would have been to have left it to the will of the industrialists, and so on, but in the last three years—1954 to 1956—the new industrial building approved in Great Britain amounted to 234 million square feet.
The new industrial building approved in the same period in Scotland was 15 million square feet. We had 6·4 per cent. In the last three years our percentage of 6·4 per cent. was perhaps a little better than half as good as what we got from the end of the war until 1953. If the period had been taken as from the end of the war to 1951, the percentage would have been better still than it has been under this Government in recent years.
I repeat to the Government that we on this side of the House believe in the policy of building factories in advance of having tenants for them. We believe in advance factories being built. When the Government say, "It was all right when there was a rush after the war,


but advance factories are no good now", I wish they would not merely look at the position in London or some other already over-industrialised place, but would pay attention to what happens in the Development Areas and, in particular, the Scottish Development Areas. When a good factory is available for letting there, do they have any difficulty in disposing of it? Scottish Industrial Estates Limited tells us that it has a great number of applicants for every vacant factory. A year ago the former President of the Board of Trade, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, told us the number of applicants for the factories which had been declared vacant the previous year. We have plenty of evidence that applicants can be obtained for vacant factories.
We have had debates in the Scottish Standing Committee when Ministers have told us that factory rent is not a consideration which will scare industrialists away. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us in the Committee that there was nothing to prevent local authorities from building factories because they could easily get an economic rent, and the Joint Under-Secretary made a similar statement about six times. I put it to the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade that if the Secretary of State for Scotland is right in saying that there is no difficulty about getting tenants for the factories and about getting an economic rent, they should agree to give authority to Scottish Industrial Estates Limited to go ahead and build some factories in parts of Scotland where they are badly needed.
The President of the Board of Trade can, at the same time, do something else which will assist greatly in getting tenants for the factories. He can refuse some of the applicants for industrial development certificates in London, the Midlands and elsewhere. I wonder why the Government have continued that system of certification, because it seems that an applicant is never refused nowadays. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the position in Dundee would ever have been made bright after the war if the Labour Government had not refused industrialists who wanted to build in London? National Cash Registers did not say, "Please may we have a factory in Dundee? "They wanted to build a factory in London, but we said, "You

will do nothing of the kind. You can have a factory in a Development Area, but not in London."
Mr. Stanley Allyn, President of National Cash Registers, has told the whole story of how the "wicked" Labour Government, as he thought, prevented him from building a factory in London and forced him to go some 450 miles away to what he regarded as an absolutely absurd place, but he now says how delighted he is that he was influenced by the Labour Government to go to Dundee.
Metropolitan-Vickers did not want to go to Motherwell. It wanted to expand at Old Trafford. We said "No. You must go to a Development Area."In due course, we forced it out to Motherwell. I could quote a long list of firms which wanted to build in London or the Midlands, but we refused permission. When we said "No" firmly enough they agreed to go into the Development Areas. We provided the factories for them.
The Government ought to do the same thing. Let them provide the factories where factories are needed. The alternative is to allow the present situation to continue, to allow Scottish unemployed to get back into employment by coming south of the Border. I do not mind people crossing the Border in either direction, but what is so bad is that Scotland's share of Great Britain's population should continue to decline in the way it has been doing.
We want a plan for Scotland. We realise that we cannot have a plan for Scotland without having a plan for Britain as a whole, and there is not one for Britain. However, we wish the Government would do their utmost to provide some kind of plan for Scotland. The alternative to providing a plan is to continue to pursue a policy of drift.
If inflation has been caused by over-full employment and over-investment, Scotland is utterly innocent and blameless, for she has never had overfull employment or over-investment. However, the people of Scotland share all the so-called anti-inflationary measures and devices. The building of roads in the Highlands and small piers in Shetland has been stopped. We experience restriction on essential works of all kinds, including factory building, and we also


suffer high interest rates. We endure all these anti-inflationary devices without having enjoyed any of the causes of inflation.
It is high time that the Government paid some attention to these matters and told us what they propose to do about them. It must not be said that I have not stated what the Labour Party would do. I have described one or two of the things that we should do. We do not think that there is very much wrong with what the Labour Government did, and we should do a great deal more of the same kind of thing; and there is no reason why we should not get the same result, which was a great improvement in the prosperity and economic and social well-being of Scotland.
There have been many changes in Scotland's economy in recent years. The light castings industry in Falkirk and the surrounding area has been in the doldrums. Former types of castings, including those of cast-iron, have been giving way to aluminium and sheet steel. We have had a number of newer industries which would seem to have made up the leeway. We have lost some employment in the old industries, but there have been additions to our economic well-being. We are all delighted at the contribution made to the economic well-being of Scotland by the newer industries, including cash registers, adding machines, business machines, typewriters, and lawn mowers.
Before we get too carried away, however, it is as well to have a look at the Digest of Statistics. There, we find that the increase in production in those industries in England and Wales far outstrips that in Scotland. Thus, we think we have been doing well until we see what others have been doing, and then the comparison shows that we have not been doing so well.
Some of us have talked to the industrialists in the new industries. They complain about the price they have to pay for their sheet steel. No hon. Member can have discussed the well-being of the new industries using light strip steel without having heard the complaint that Scottish industrialists have to pay more for their strip steel than industrialists in the South. They have to pay at least £3 a ton more than their competitors in the South.
It is even worse than that. Some of them have complained very bitterly to me that they have to pay £3 or more per ton more for the steel than do even their associate companies in the South. They ask, "How do you expect us to expand this industry in Scotland while we work under this deterrent to expansion?"
Of course, there was difficulty about supplies. I am not so sure that they are suffering from that difficulty now, but during 1954 and into 1955—and I am not sure if it was not into 1956, but certainly into 1955—the industries using this strip steel were very short of their raw material. But their associate companies in the South—not only their competitors in the South, but their associate companies there—were getting it. This is a great incentive to them not to expand in Scotland. It is a great incentive to them to apply to the President of the Board of Trade for an industrial development certificate so that they can expand in the South and close their places north of the Border.
The graph of industrial production follows steel production in all manufacturing countries, and Scotland is no exception to this rule. In The Scotsman today there is a leader—with which, incidentally, I disagree—which starts with a sentence that makes the point. It says:
It is no secret that there is a close connection between the standard of living of a people and its use of steel.
We, in Scotland, have been producing a diminishing share of Britain's steel. We have been consuming a diminishing share of Britain's steel. We have been enduring a diminishing share of Britain's prosperity. There is one way, and one way only, in which to deal with Scotland's inherent difficulties in this respect and that is the construction there of a mill to produce this steel.
I believe that the siting of such a mill in Scotland is as important for our light industries as is Colvilles' heavy plate industry for Clyde shipbuilding. It will not do to call attention to the great expansion Scotland should enjoy as a result of Colville's development—including that mentioned by Sir Andrew McCance yesterday, to tie it up with shipbuilding on the Clyde, but to ignore these newer industries in Scotland that do not have, near to home, any source of


supply of the steel they need for expansion.
Yesterday's announcement about Colvilles' development pleased all of us, inasmuch as it reported considerable modernisation there. We all welcome that, but let us not get too carried away with ourselves, too enthusiastic because we are merely modernising, and keeping in step with others, if, at the same time, we allow that enthusiasm and excitement to blind us to the absence of an industry in Scotland which is as essential to our light engineering industry as is the Colvilles' development to shipbuilding on the Clyde.
Sir Andrew McCance is reported in the Press as having said, referring to the strip mill:
The less said about that the better.
I have no personal quarrel with Sir Andrew McCance, but I suspect that, when he said that, he meant that the less said about it the better for Colvilles'—not for Scotland.
It is a bit hard that we should get an industrialist in Scotland, no matter how important he may be, saying, "I should have a monopoly of this business in Scotland."These are the great anti-nationalisation people who say that nationalisation creates a monopoly, but they do not want any competition in Scotland. They will not produce the steel that the new Scotland really needs, but they are to make a demand for all our coking coal.
I would not so strongly urge the establishment of this strip mill in Scotland if I believed that we were so short of coking coal that this development would threaten the future of our heavy plate industry at Colvilles'. But I do not think that it does. We have the coking coal. Perhaps I might just get this into perspective by saying that I believe that industrialists in Scotland, other than Sir Andrew McCance, are of one mind about the need for a strip mill. It is not argued. Everyone says that, of course, a strip mill would be a great boon and a great blessing. All agree that there is a great need for it.
The case in favour of a strip mill is generally accepted. But there are some objections. It is understandable that some people would find reasons for not getting on with it. It is said, "You want an economic unit."It is said, "A mill of this kind would be economic only if it

produced at least 1 million tons a year." And we say, "Why should it not?" It is said "The user industries in this country do not use 1 million tons a year." Of course they do not—and they never will if we do not have that strip mill. In any case, we should, first, expand our need for strip steel if we produced it in Scotland and, in addition, we could make some available for export. That would be better than having to import, as we do at present.
None of us is arguing in favour of a strip mill to produce only a quarter of a million tons a year. If we had a production of 1 million tons we should find a good use for most of it, and send some of it to Europe—where it will go, in any case. If we have this strip mill, perhaps the ships that bring the ore into this country from Scandinavia will find it more convenient to dump it in Scottish ports than to take it elsewhere.
That brings me to iron ore. It is said, "We do not have the iron ore in Scotland to feed this industry." That is true. We do not have it—but we do not have it in the United Kingdom, so that if the argument is that because we do not have the ore in Scotland we should not have a mill there, it is also an argument for not expanding the steel industry in Great Britain at all—because we do not have the iron ore. We import it in large quantities just now, and any addition to the demand for iron ore must be met by increased imports.
I repeat that a lot of this stuff comes from Scandinavian countries. There is a long association between some Scottish ports and the Scandinavian countries—Leith and Gothenberg, for instance. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) may very well develop that later. Be that as it may, there is no reason at all why the iron ore that is to be brought to the United Kingdom in any case should not be brought—does the President of the Board of Trade say that we do not have to import iron ore?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): One of the difficulties is to decide how much of the home ore will be used in the new mill. There is a new field of development in the Midlands which the hon. Gentleman may not know about.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, yes. We in Scotland know too much about Midland ore, because that is what led to the great exodus from Lanarkshire, when Stewart and Lloyd's found it better to transfer to Northamptonshire to be on top of the ore beds. They need coal too, do they not?
The right hon. Gentleman is now saying—or, at least implying—that since we are to use some home ore and some imported ore, it would be better not to build a steel mill in Scotland, because we do not have any hope—[Interruption.] Oh, he is not saying that at all? I do not know with whom he is arguing. What I was trying to make out was that any addition to the demand for ore in this country must be met by an increase in the importation of iron ore. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman, he denied saying "No" and said that he said "Yes". [HON MEMBERS: "Ask him now."] He does not know.
I do not want to take up time. The Ministers have heard me and industrialists know that what I have said is true, whether the President of the Board of Trade agrees or not. There are, no doubt, some industrialists who disagree. Sir Andrew McCance is probably one of them. We come, however, from iron ore to coking coal. There are people in Scotland who say that the coking coal is not there. I wonder how much coking coal is there. When I met some officials of the Divisional Coal Board, a little while ago, I asked them if we had at least 300 million tons of coking coal that they knew about. They replied, "Yes", they had at least 300 million tons of reserves.
I said, "May we not have a great deal more than that?" "Oh, yes," they replied, "but we have not provided in our ten-year plan for the winning of it." Of course not. Colvilles have been getting on very well with the National Coal Board. The Board has made a ten-year plan for the extraction of coal from underneath the surface of Scotland to meet the demands of Colvilles. This plan having been made, if one suggests that another couple of mines should be opened up to provide the coking coal for another steel industry, the reply is given that the plan cannot be interfered with. So the whole programme and economic policy of the Government has to be geared to suit

the Coal Board plan for the winning of coking coal, a plan which was determined by Colvilles, of Motherwell. That does not seem to me to be very clever.
Then, I was told by officials of the Coal Board in Scotland that, in any case, the site at Grangemouth was obviously the wrong site for a strip mill. I asked why. In reply, the members of the Divisional Coal Board told me that to build a steel mill there would sterilise 50 million tons of the best coking coal.
I make a suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade. Let the site for the mill be shifted along a little bit, let them put down a big coal mine and they will get all the coking coal at the gates of the steel mill to keep them going for the next fifty years. That is all that needs to be done. The Coal Board says that the coal is there. Whether it will be won, I do not know; whether Colvilles want it we do not know, but the coal is there.
It was said that 50 million tons would be sterilised. That is a lot of nonsense, anyway. No such quantity would be sterilised. In any case, it would be madness to sterilise large quantities of coking coal by the building of this mill. It could be built, surely, on an adjacent site, not so far away, allowing the coal to be brought up just alongside the steel mill, thus saving all the transport charges which so much worry the Government and which are considered to be such a disability to the development of Scottish industry.
None of the objections which have been offered to the siting of a steel mill in Scotland will stand up. I hope that the Government will plan to enable Scotland to play her rightful part in our expanding United Kingdom economy. Other points will be raised about this during the debate. I seem to have spent long enough upon it already.
I turn briefly to the jute industry. I listened with alarm and despondency to the statement made yesterday by the president of the Board of Trade, and I ask him this question: Is this the beginning of the end? Are the Government writing off the jute industry of Dundee? The President of the Board of Trade made clear yesterday that the Government were to pay more attention to the needs of the area and see whether they could give more help under the Distribution of Industry Acts.
The Minister of Labour will know that there is about 5 per cent. of unemployment in Dundee now. Would it not have been better if the Government had pressed on with the provision of new employment and the attraction of new industry to the area before delivering the body blow at the jute industry which the President of the Board of Trade delivered yesterday? He forecast in his statement that the effect of the reduction in his marking up from 40 to 30 per cent, would be a reduction in demand and a falling off in employment. After we get a further increase in unemployment in Dundee, which is already considerably higher than the national average, the Government, therefore, are seeing whether there is anything they can do to attract new industry into the area. That is going about it the wrong way.
The decision announced yesterday was a decision of the Government. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was a wicked person who delivered the body blow and that it could not have been foreseen. It was the Government who made this decision. They have taken the decision which, the President of the Board of Trade believes, will lead to a further run-down in employment opportunity in Dundee and after the position has become desperately bad they will see whether they can do something to take new employment into the area.
I suggest to the Minister of Labour that it might not be a bad thing if, even at this late date, the Government were to appoint a representative independent committee to look at the position in Dundee and to see whether the jute industry can be saved. That is important. We ought not to write it off, as I thought the President of the Board of Trade was doing yesterday. We should have a committee to consider whether the jute industry can be saved. If, in the view of the committee, a decline is inevitable, and it cannot be saved, such a committee might make recommendations to the Government as to what the future of Dundee will be.
I am not asking that all the wonderful plans that the Government have in mind for the attraction of new industry should be put into cold storage while the committee does its work. Let the Government press on with any ideas they have. In fact, let them tell us about them

today and we will be delighted to hear that the Government are taking the initiative, if, at last, they are doing so, in seeking to steer additional new industry into Scotland.
In any case, I ask the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for Scotland, together with the President of the Board of Trade, to consider the appointment of such a committee to study the matter closely. It will not, I hope, be a committee which lasts years, but should look at the matter closely and see whether the industry can be saved and, if not, what is the alternative.
It does not seem to some of us to be very clever to have closed the Dundee office of the Board of Trade the month before this decision was announced. I know that the Government closed a lot of other offices as well as the Dundee one, but if Dundee was an area which already had 5 per cent. unemployment, if there was already a lot of redundancy in the jute industry, if there had been some pay-offs and if the Government had in mind the making of yesterday's announcement that would make it necessary to look for alternative employment in Dundee, this does not seem to be the time to sack the organisation which otherwise the Government would have used to help them in this work.
I well remember the help I got from the office in Dundee when I assumed a little responsibility for this kind of thing. I much regret that the Government will not be assisted by this local office in Dundee. But, in any case, that is gone and done with. Let the Government consider some other suggestions.
Many people in Scotland are worried about the effect of the cuts in the defence programme upon our economy. None of us wants to go on manufacturing guns, tanks and ships of war and maintaining these things at all. We are all in favour of modifications of the defence programme and of disarmament, even if it leads to our constituents being put out of employment. We listened to the statement made the other day about the Royal Ordnance factories. We have many thousands of our constituents employed in such factories, in the R.E.M.E. depots, and in firms like Rolls-Royce and others, which are engaged largely on defence contracts.
We thought of Bishopton, which is to be maintained, but with no guarantee about the rate of employment in the Bishopton Factory, which is in the constituency of the Secretary of State. A great many workers from Greenock work there, and although the unemployment rate in Greenock has been about 6 per cent., my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) cannot be given any assurance at all about the level of employment in this factory.
An announcement was made about Dalmuir, which is to complete its present contracts and then be turned over to Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox. There is agreement in principle on that. The T.N.T. factory at Irvine, we understand, is to be closed. I mention these things not because I want to argue them at this time, but to say to the Government that we are all concerned about the workers who are being and are to be displaced. Where are they to find employment? I have heard the Minister of Labour answering many Questions about workers displaced in the motor car industry in the Midlands, and he always gives a ready assurance that there is alternative employment for those workers.
Where is that alternative employment for the workers who are to be displaced from these establishments in Scotland? Is it in Scotland, or is it south of the Border? Must they come to London to get a job? I hope that they will not have to come to London to get a job. I do not mind some of them coming to London and some London people going up there, but I do not want to see our share of the total labour force running down so constantly, as it does.
Then, we have to consider the effect on local unemployment in local areas of the running down, and the closing, in some cases, of naval bases, such as Rosyth and Invergordon, and, no doubt, there will be some effect at Donibristle. What is to happen to the workers in these areas? For far too long we have solved, or, at any rate, eased, our unemployment problem by exporting our workers, but I hope that it will not continue. We have one-third of Great Britain's land area, and our share of the population is still about 10 per cent., and it is still declining.
We live in a small and overcrowded island. I do not think that any of us is

against the mobility of labour; I am not. I want to see labour mobile, and I have made many speeches in which I have encouraged my own constituents to be mobile. I think that I have perhaps the most mobile constituents in Scotland. My constituency was once regarded as a mining constituency, but it no longer is a mining constituency. It is only a constituency where many miners live, but they travel very long distances to their work, and a great many have transferred their homes to some of the developing coal areas, not only in Scotland but to a considerable extent in England.
I have encouraged my constituents to go to Fife, the Lothians, Ayrshire, and even into Dumfriesshire, but, in view of the new rent policy of the Dumfriesshire County Council, I will drop Dumfriesshire from the list.
In any case, I think that one can be sympathetic to the movement of population within the country, and can accept the fact of the population in a town or small community decreasing while the population of another town or community was becoming very much larger. This kind of movement is bound to go on all the time, but when we deal with Scotland as a whole and find that, year after year, our share of the total employment goes down steadily, none of us can accept it and remain complacent about it. But this has been going on.
When he replies to the debate, the Minister of Labour can give us his appreciation of the rate at which it has been going on. Let him confirm or deny whether it has been going on, and whether we have been solving or easing our unemployment problem by exporting our workers south of the Border. I would add that for sound social and economic reasons, as well as for strategic reasons, our expanding population should be reflected in Scotland's share of the population increasing rather than the reverse. At least, let the right hon. Gentleman demonstrate today that the Government will halt the drift.

4.46 p.m.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is a courteous and effective debater, and I think he has made an extremely effective speech this afternoon. It sets a good


note for the sort of debate we are to have, one in which we can voice with anxiety, if we like, the problems that confront us in Scotland, but without being alarmist about them. The hon. Gentleman, I thought, gave less credit than he might have done to the Government, but this, in my view, is a common failing on the benches opposite.
In these debates, apart from comparisons with the present and past years, hon. Members often like to compare what is happening in Scotland with what is happening in England and Wales, and that thread ran through the whole of the hon. Member's speech. I am not complaining in the least; I will try to follow the same line myself. Another formidable practitioner in these debates is the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who will no doubt develop some of these points himself.
It may be that many years among Sassenachs have softened me, but I rarely take such a strictly comparative line as we have heard from the hon. Member for Hamilton this afternoon, but there is one comparison out of quite a lot with England and Wales that I should like to make at the beginning, because I think it is of great importance. It is what has happened in employment and unemployment over the last year.
We know that, although there has been an expanding employment over the last ten years, there was a check last year, and I think it is important to note, first of all, that although the long-term expansion slowed down in the whole of Great Britain, both unemployment and employment figures show that it slowed down less in Scotland than in England and Wales. For example, at mid-1956, the numbers in employment in Scotland were 4 per cent. higher than in 1948, and 2·6 per cent. higher than in 1951. Since June, 1956, the number in employment in Scotland fell by half of 1 per cent., and the decrease in England and Wales, at 0·7 per cent., was rather higher. As far as the unemployment figures are concerned, it is true that for many years our unemployment figures have been higher and the demand for labour lower than in most other parts of Great Britain, but, even so, in the last complete years 1955 and 1956, the average rate of unemployment of 2·4 per cent. was less in Scotland than for any year

since the National Insurance Scheme was extended.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The workers have been migrating from Scotland.

Mr. Macleod: The check in expansion to which I referred affected the figures of unemployment. Comparing the first six months of this year with the same period of 1956, the average percentage rate of unemployment in Scotland was up by 0·25, while the rate for England and Wales was up by 0·4.
Though I would never base too much of a case on a few months, the importance of those two figures is simply that they seem to show that the great anxiety which we have all had in Scotland really does not appear, on that evidence, to be justified. People have always felt that if a check came to the prosperity of this country, as a check did come last year, it would affect Scotland first and more steeply than the rest of Great Britain. Taking both unemployment and employment figures, the evidence which I have given would seem to show that that is not so.

Mr. T. Fraser: I should have thought, and perhaps the Minister will consider this, that the check we suffered in this country last year was the result of Suez, and it affected the motor car industry more than any other industry. We have no motor car industry in Scotland, so there would be less effect in Scotland.

Mr. Macleod: No, not at all. The check I am referring to went a long way wider than the motor car industry, and it was affected primarily by no means by Suez, which had a very small effect on the economy, but by a number of factors, including; of course, the credit squeeze and Government policy. I do not seek to deny Government responsibility for the policies which had this effect.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: Is the Minister not taking into account the drift south, which obviously had a tremendous effect on the Scottish figures?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, of course it has had an effect; but my argument was based on both employment and unemployment figures.
I have only one small quarrel, and it does not affect his argument, with the


comparison the hon. Member for Hamilton made as regards Scotland's share of jobs. He used for his comparison the total working population. I do not think that is a good comparison to take, because the figure includes the Forces and also the unemployed. To take the increased numbers in civil employment in those years, there was an increase of 911,000 jobs in Great Britain, and Scotland had 61,000 of those, which is 6·7 per cent. It does not destroy his argument, but I think that 6·7 per cent. is a better figure than the 5·8 per cent. which he put forward.
In the Scottish Development Areas, just to clear up the point about employment and unemployment, in 1956 unemployment was lower than in any year during the last ten years, and in January of this year these areas lost the distinction—which we can well do without—of having the highest percentage rate of any Development Area.
If I concentrate, as I think would be right, on the problems, that does not mean that there is not a great deal of really encouraging news about Scotland and Scotland's economy, which I shall mention briefly at the end.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister not give us any estimate at all about the amount of migration from Scotland to England, and the extent to which Scotland's unemployment problem is concealed or solved—whichever term he prefers—by Scotsmen coming to England?

Mr. Macleod: I do not propose to prophesy the future rate of migration—

Mr. Ross: Dodging the issue.

Mr. Macleod: I am not dodging the argument in the least. From the figures I have given, the increase of the numbers of jobs in Scotland has not been as substantial as in England and Wales—I concede that point to the hon. Gentleman—but I do not see how one can study the figures I have given, which the hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, look at again in HANSARD, and conclude that Scotland has not been extremely prosperous over these last few years.

Mr. Ross: Quite wrong.

Mr. Macleod: I want to take as the first of the unemployment problems to which the hon. Member for Hamilton referred, the pattern of defence expenditure and the changes which will arise from it. It is important to keep this matter in perspective, and I will remind the House of what I said in the defence debate on 17th April this year:
The first thing that we must be quite clear about is that there is nothing very new in the situation that faces us … Indeed, in the last four years, the numbers employed on defence production have been reduced by 200,000, including a fall of no fewer than 70,000 last year. It is probable that the reduction this year will be a good deal less than that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 1942.]
Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will know that reductions of direct Government employment have been announced which will affect something like 2,000 or 2,500 workers between now and some time in 1959. Of course, it is always desirable, where it can be done, to ensure that factory space is not wasted, and it is good to know that the Dalmuir factory will probably be used by the well known private firm, Babcock & Wilcox. Of course, it is true also that it is not always easy to find a suitable tenant for some of these factories. Clearly, a factory which is tooled for tank production is likely to be more attractive than one which is equipped for a more specialised job such as, for instance, the filling of ammunition.
Another great advantage of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is that it makes it possible for me, by having a really long notice of any redundancies that take place, to do everything I can through my local network of exchanges to find employment for those concerned. I know perfectly well that there will be substantial difficulties. The Greenock and Port Glasgow area worries me a good deal, and I hope to listen to what the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has to say if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But all the information available to me seems to suggest that defence cuts are not likely to cause widespread unemployment in Scotland. We shall do everything we can to find other work for those displaced, a task, as I say, made a good deal more easy by the fact that, because we are the employers in many of these cases, we can


give the long period of notice of redundancy which I always press upon private firms as being so important.
The hon. Member for Hamilton asked what jobs there would be for these people and inquired about possible vacancies. As the House knows, the position as regards skilled men is that there is comparatively little problem. General engineering has been expanding its employment, and there is, and will almost certainly remain, a shortage of skilled workers. For the rest, the task is a good deal more difficult, and it has to be tackled in those pockets to which I referred with special care and, if necessary, by making the sort of local arrangements which I sometimes am able to make if an area meets heavy unemployment difficulties.
The second main problem concerns the jute industry. Anyone who thought that this was an easy matter would have been disillusioned yesterday even by the very brief exchanges which took place after the President of the Board of Trade announced the reduction in the mark-up at which the principal types of imported hessians are sold. It is, of course, a very complex problem, as was admitted, I think, by one hon. Member who used the expression "admittedly difficult", though I do not suggest for a moment that he agreed with what was being done. The difficulty of the problem must be faced. Hon. Members for English constituencies put a very different point of view.
I am sure I need not tell the House that it was only after the most careful consideration that this step was taken. It was taken in the belief that, although it is bound to cause some immediate difficulty, it will be ln the best interests of Dundee in the long run. In talking about Dundee I do not under-estimate the difficulty, perhaps relatively even more serious than it is for Dundee, which may be caused in some of the other towns, like Forfar and Kirriemuir in the neighbourhood.
In all these discussions my officials and I myself have been concerned from the beginning, because, of course, nobody can pretend that this will not affect employment in Scotland. If one had done nothing—and there are often attractions to a Government in doing nothing—I think it would have become increasingly clear, as it seemed clear to

the President of the Board of Trade and to me and our colleagues, that the present form of protection given to the industry was operating against the interests not only of the users of jute goods but also of jute as an industrial material.
Of course, there are several considerations one has to take into account. Although, no doubt. Dundee has first claim on our sympathy, we have also to consider the trading position of the Commonwealth countries. Nor need I emphasise that a very strenuous effort will have to be made if the industry is to remain competitive, and the firms in the industry know that very well.
I should like to emphasise what the President of the Board of Trade made clear, that we intend to do everything we can to intensify our efforts to encourage new industries to establish themselves, because whether one agrees or disagrees with the action which the Government have taken and this decision which has been announced, it is common ground that increased diversification of industry is the best prospect for the Dundee area. We shall do everything we can to push that forward.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I am following with great interest what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I realise that he and his Department are always on the spot in foreseeing these changes, but he has repeated several times that the Government will do everything possible, and so I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman finishes his speech he will give us some idea of what those measures will be. He has this advantage, that this business is to take place during the next two years, which means that there is a possibility of making some plans. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has made the suggestion, for instance, of advance factories, and things of that kind. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether by arrangement with the President of the Board of Trade, that is being planned, at the same time as calculations are being made about employment and unemployment.

Mr. Macleod: I shall be very glad to consider the suggestion the hon. Member for Hamilton made in opening the debate for the Opposition,


but I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to wind up the debate, wants particularly to deal with that side of the matter himself, and so, with the permission of the House, I shall not go beyond the statement which I have made.
Another matter about which the hon. Member spoke—and he did so with great feeling, very understandably—was the question of the new steel works. It is a sore point in Scotland that steel-making capacity has not expanded there at the same rate as it has in England and Wales—a sore point, not just because of the extra employment such expansion would provide, but because people feel that steel-using industries would be, because of such expansion, more likely to be attracted to the neighbourhood, which was the telling argument the hon. Member made.
It is known that the industry's plans include a proposal for a new integrated works, including a strip mill to be set up on an entirely new site. It is known also that a number of sites have been suggested, including a Scottish location. What I would say in response to the hon. Member immediately is that this project is of first importance for the economy of the country as a whole, not only of Scotland but of all these islands, and, of course, it needs a very great deal of thought to be absolutely certain that the right place is chosen.
There are complex technical issues into which I am not qualified—few of us would be—to go, but there is also the question of whether the labour will be available for operating the plant. On all this we are trying to get the best advice we can, and I would assure the House that the advantages of the Scottish site, amongst which the labour supply prospects are important, will be given all due weight, and that no final decision on this matter has yet been taken.

Mr. Thomas Steele: Very poor indeed.

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member would have been startled if I had announced any decision in any terms other than the ones I have used. However, I should like to leave that.
The hon. Member for Hamilton, still following his comparative path, talked on rather the same lines he did last year about industrial development, and he said that applications for industrial development certificates were never refused. That is not the position. They are not refused in Scotland. That was going to be part of my argument. It is not true at all that industrial development certificates are not refused elsewhere. In London, which the hon. Member mentioned, except for extensions, practically none is ever given. We do take every opportunity that we can, in discussions with firms from elsewhere which are looking for new quarters, to publicise the advantages of Scotland.
In the financial year which has just ended well over £2 million, 42 per cent. of all expenditure on factory building in the Development Areas, was spent in Scotland under the Distribution of Industry Act, and in the first three months of this current financial year Scotland's share, about £310,000, was 54 per cent. of the total. At 31st March, 1957, Government factories covering an area of 779,000 sq. ft., more than half the total area for Government factories in all the Development Areas, were being built in Scotland. As Scotland, in its Development Areas, has 31 per cent. of the insured employees and 34 per cent. of the people unemployed in all Development Areas, it is clear that Scotland in this respect is getting its share.
Of course, the House knows that approvals of Government financed building are now allowed only in cases of exceptional urgency and importance, and I need not emphasise the need for restraint in Government expenditure. The simple point I want to make is that, whatever the opinion may be about the amount we are doing as a Government, what cannot be denied is that Scotland is getting its full share of that, and, indeed, rather more than its share.

Mr. T. Fraser: When the right hon. Gentleman says that of the applications for industrial development certificates in London all were refused but those for minor extensions, he gives the impression that very few industrial development certificates were issued in London. Can he reconcile that statement of his with the information which one gathers from the Digest of Statistics that factory


building in London and in the southeast of England is three times the amount of factory building in Scotland?

Mr. Macleod: That reconciliation was gone into in great detail by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was President of the Board of Trade in answer to a similar argument by the hon. Member a year ago, and it is recorded in HANSARD. The words I used were "with the exception of extensions." I do not know whether extensions cover all I referred to. Admittedly, the statement I made was after a rather brief talk on the Bench with the President of the Board of Trade with the object of responding to the hon. Member. If there is any way in which it can be amplified, perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to take the matter up at the end of the debate.
I would refer to two matters which affect my Ministry and which, I think, are of very great interest to hon. Members from the Highlands and Islands and crofting counties. The first is not exclusively a Highland matter, or indeed exclusively a Scottish matter. Some of the difficulties were brought to my notice by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am referring to the training allowances scheme which was formerly known as the special aptitude scheme.
I think it is becoming clear that the scheme in its present form would not continue to serve its original purpose in the changed circumstances created by what is called the "bulge" in the birth rate which will soon be called the "school-leavers bulge." A number of letters have made clear to me that in some cases the scheme may work unfairly for lads coming from remote areas who wish to take up apprenticeships in large cities, where, by the very nature of things, there are almost certainly enough boys already, although conceivably not all of the same calibre as those who wish to come from the distant areas.
I have been studying this scheme and have come to certain preliminary conclusions. I put these ideas before the National Youth Employment Council at its meeting on Tuesday of this week. I am not ready—nor shall I be for some time yet—to announce the details of the changes, but I think that hon. Members might like to know that I am con-

templating a new approach to this problem.
Secondly, I announced on 2nd July that, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and after considering the views of the Crofters Commission, I had decided to extend the arrangements for the deferment of National Service for crofters. Up to now they have had to satisfy the same conditions for deferment as other agricultural workers, but under the new arrangement they will be specially treated. I think this will be of real benefit to the crofting community.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and apologise for interrupting him, but this special aptitude scheme is rather interesting. I take it that we may expect it to be announced by October, because that is a rather important time of the year.

Mr. Macleod: I think that by that time I shall probably be able to announce, any way in the classic phrase, the way one's mind is moving.
I propose to sum up in a moment, because this is essentially a debate in which one wants to listen to hon. Members putting their own particular cases and their own views of Scotland's problems and to try to learn from them. I should like to refer to a point which I made earlier. If we are discussing the affairs of the country—we need not remind ourselves, of course, that this is a country, but it is as well to remind other hon. Members that it is a country and not a region—there are bound to be both light and shade in the picture one paints.
I have concentrated, and of course the debate will concentrate, on the problems affecting Scotland, but I think it would be quite wrong to pretend that the situation is in any way an unhappy one, because the figures of employment and unemployment which I have given show quite cleary that Scotland is a prosperous country. Before I conclude, I should like to mention very quickly for the record some of the brighter spots in the picture.
Shipbuilding activity is at a very high level, and new orders for merchant ships are being placed in Scottish yards this year at a higher rate even than last year. There has been a very useful growth in


the big engineering and electrical goods group of industries which continues to expand and during the last year—and this again, I think, has relevance to the analysis I made to the check to employment—employment grew to 163,000, an increase of nearly 1 per cent. and that at a time when the national figure showed an equal decrease.
In Scotland, we have twice as many skilled engineering vacancies as the number of unemployed. That, of course, is not a situation that prevails in the rest of the employment field. In the past year we have seen an increase of nearly 2,000 among the wage earners on colliery books in Scotland. That is the biggest increase in any of the National Coal Board divisions, except in the West Midlands where a special recruiting drive is proceeding.
There is, too, the very remarkable position in the Borders where not only is there full employment, but an acute shortage of labour in the area, which is an important centre for one kind of tweed and the main centre for knitwear. In the whole of the Border area last month there were only 176 unemployed people and only 700 unfilled places. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Jedburgh?"] Yes, Jedburgh is a difficult place, but, even including Jedburgh, those figures hold. That is a degree, even taking into account the very strange position in Jedburgh, of a labour shortage unparalleled not only in Scotland, but in most parts of England as well.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: I know that my right hon. Friend has interested himself in the problem of Jedburgh. There is a royal and ancient burgh running down because many are employed outside the burgh who were previously employed in the North British Rayon Mills. They are now too diversified. The merchants and the social amenities are tending to stream down, although there is no great unemployment in Jedburgh, and never has been. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) mentioned, we have the factory available and we hope that somebody will put an industry into the site already available.

Mr. Macleod: I know the position which my hon. and gallant Friend has outlined. That is why I used the ex-

pression the "strange position in Jed-burgh". Of course, if one looks at the figures alone, which is always a dangerous thing to do, there is no unemployment there, but there is a very real problem along the lines mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.
These examples could be multiplied many times. We could talk about hydroelectric and atomic developments. Even though today we are going to discuss our anxieties and our problems, I think that, at the same time, from the figures I have given and from what I have said in these last few minutes, from the record of Scotland as it was and as we all know it today, we can take a great deal of pride in the many successes which Scotland has achieved in recent years. I do not think that our anxieties over the problems should cloud our judgment of the very remarkable successes that have been achieved.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: Quite frankly, I rise on this occasion to deal essentially with a constituency point, the very grave threat, as we see it, which the Government's announcement of yesterday represents to Dundee. In doing so, however, I should like to attempt to relate it to the wider problem of Scotland and Scottish industry which we are discussing, because it seems to me only a more urgent case in point of a very much wider theme which has already been put forward from the Opposition Front Bench.
What the announcement yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade meant, as I understood it—and my impression was very much confirmed by what the Minister said today—was that the Government are beginning the process of exposing the jute industry which, as he well said, is not exclusively Dundee, but Dundee and the surrounding area, to the market forces of the world. That is the Government's general outlook and their general policy.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will do us the credit of believing that we on this side know the arguments in favour of doing that just as well as he does, and just as well as his colleagues do. Of course, he does not need to tell us that if we reduce or abolish the degree of protection at present enjoyed by the jute


industry in Dundee we shall cheapen the cost of production of, in this case, jute bags by a small amount and that that, in turn, will add a fractional amount to the cost of production of the things that go into those bags, and, therefore, will effect the economy of the country in general.
That is the classic argument for free trade, for laissez-faire and for non-interference. I will point out in passing, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should note this, that the United Kingdom Jute Goods Association remarked this morning that it thinks, even from its point of view, that the actions taken will do very little to alleviate its position. Therefore, it is a very fractional benefit which is being claimed. However, that is the argument.
We are perfectly well aware of that, but what hon. and right hon. Members opposite seem never to be willing to note is that there is a counter-balancing argument, that we must weigh that gain in the cost of production throughout the economy, theoretically at any rate, against the social frictions and the social costs which will be inflicted by taking that action. This is a very extreme case where we have an industry which is concentrated almost completely in one town. I am not saying that this action has gone as far yet, but it is a case where if we destroy that industry we go far indeed to destroying that city. This is not just a theoretical calculation. Unfortunately, as everyone in Dundee knows, this is what happens. They know in Dundee from long and bitter experience between the wars that this is what happened when the jute industry was exposed to these forces.
We see no attempt on the part of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to weigh these two social costs one against the other—the gain in the cost of jute bags against the potential destruction of the very large quantity of social capital invested in a great city such as Dundee. I am not speaking for the moment in terms of the human suffering inflicted but only of the sheer economic loss to the community of rendering schools, houses and all the equipment of a great city unemployed or, in practice, underemployed, as it was in Dundee for twenty years together. I am not talking of investment in the jute industry itself for the moment, though I shall come to that, but

of the vast social cost of rendering underemployed a large part of the millions of pounds of investment in social capital that has gone on in a great city such as Dundee.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite seem totally to ignore this and do not seem to trouble to argue whether the gain in the production cost of jute bags out-weighs it. They are totally blind to the social cost when in a most doctrinaire way an industry is exposed to the unregulated forces of the market in this manner.
I should like to follow that with the specific point which the President of the Board of Trade raised, both in his statement and in his interjection to me, when he said in effect, "In any case this was done in the best interests of Dundee", which the Minister of Labour also claimed today, and added that anyhow Dundee was already suffering considerably from the competition of substitute goods, such as paper bags against jute bags. We in Dundee feel a certain bitterness when we are told that this blow is being struck at us in our best interest. What consolation is it to Dundee if now Indian hessians are allowed in and they compete effectively with paper bags? That will give not one man or woman in Dundee employment. There is absolutely no consolation in that.
The second part of the argument of the President of the Board of Trade was that, after all, the industry must bring down its prices. That may be so, but that conflicts with his view that the competition of paper bags is going on. If that is going on, it must be an effective encouragement to Dundee producers to reduce their prices anyhow. There is no need to let in Indian hessians if paper bags are already exercising strong pressure on the Dundee jute industry to reduce its prices. I think that they are exercising that pressure, but that shows that the continuation of a measure of protection for Dundee would not leave the industry in an over-protected condition in which it would have no competition to meet and in which it would get slack, with all the objections to that. On the Government's own showing, the paper bag and jute substitute competition is a quite effective spur on the industry.
When the President of the Board of Trade intervened and I asked whether this


was the end of a period of steady prosperity for Dundee, as it certainly was regarded, the right hon. Gentleman said that I was quite wrong and that Dundee was already not experiencing a period of steady prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right. The prosperity is not so steady as it was a few years ago, but if the position is not so satisfactory, is that a good argument to strike a mortal blow at the industry? That seems to us to represent the view that when a man is down or half-down, that is the time to kick him.
The jute employers in Dundee by no means share the political opinions of those of us on this side of the House. We often have quite sharp discussions with them on labour matters and the rest, but we can sometimes see their point of view. Since the war, the jute employers have invested about £10 million in the modernisation of the industry, which for an industry of this size is not a bad record. It compares pretty favourably with other sections of the textile industry in the United Kingdom. The employers have done this against the background of repeated statements by the Government that they were continuing the present system of jute control. Those statements encouraged the employers to invest and to modernise their industry.
If that whole policy is now to be reversed, what will be the effect on other industries which the Government wish to induce to modernise and invest? I should have thought that the effect will be serious indeed in cases where the Government wish industries to produce modernisation of this sort, because it will be no very happy experience to employers who, whatever else we say of them, certainly have made very strenuous efforts at modernisation in their own industry.
I now come to the other side of the Government's case—on new industries in Dundee. Both the President of the Board of Trade and again the Minister of Labour today spoke of their desire to bring new industries into Dundee and of the importance of doing so. They revealed by that, quite clearly, that they recognise that what they are doing will make for contraction in employment in the jute industry. After that, it is quite impossible for them to argue that they are

not striking a blow at the jute industry. It shows very frankly that their action was bound to cause immediate difficulties there.
We fully recognise and agree with the need to bring new industries into Dundee. The record of the Labour Government in that respect is one of the most successful cases of activity under the Distribution of Industry Acts. I repeat to the Minister, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with the point, that at the very moment when, as the Minister has admitted, the jute industry is to be curtailed, rightly or wrongly, by direct Government action, and the Government says "We must bring new industries to Dundee", the Government close down the Board of Trade office which was the instrument through which new industries were brought into Dundee. It is no good the Secretary of State saying, "After all, what we are closing down is the local office. The whole thing can be done just as well from Glasgow."
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny that in Dundee the local Board of Trade Office was considered the symbol of the intention of the Government to press on with bringing new industries into the City. Here I want to pay a great tribute to the succession of officials of the Board of Trade who ran that office in Dundee and who did very good work in that respect. Dundee has taken the closing down of that office as a sign that not only is the jute industry to be curtailed but at the same time the Government have lost interest in the question of bringing new industries into the City.
It is that double blow which is having so profound an effect on the psychology of the people of Dundee. This applies not only to Dundee but to Lanarkshire and to every area which was once a distressed area, whether in Scotland or not. There is a special psychology in these areas. One cannot go through the experiences that Dundee went through during the inter-war period without having a real terror of such a situation returning. When people see what has been happening both to their own staple industry and to the prospect of bringing in new industries, it is no wonder that there is a state of extreme apprehension


in the City today. I am not saying that what has been done so far will totally ruin the jute industry, but everybody in Dundee takes it to be the first step in a course leading to the gradual dismantling of the jute control, and certainly the impression given by Government spokesmen today and yesterday can only be that.
If that is so, I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he can give of what would be the effect on the industry if, and when, control is completely removed. At what size does he think the industry would settle down? I have heard responsible opinion which takes the view that it would settle down at about one-quarter of its present size, with three-quarters closed down, and that would he a catastrophe of the worst kind for the City of Dundee, which could certainly not be remedied by the introduction of new industries, at any rate in the short run.
All the anxieties we feel in Dundee are, as it seems to us, merely a case in point of the anxieties felt—and so well expressed by the spokesman from the Opposition Front Bench today—in the Scottish industrial areas. The figures quoted show this amply. They are vulnerable areas which, unless there is regulation of industry of some kind, are apt to fall hack into being distressed areas. In any policy of laissez-faire, in any policy of allowing market forces free play, there will he areas which will fall back into being permanently distressed areas, and a great many of them are in Scotland.
That is the law of the market. The law of the market is, "For whosoever hath. to him shall be given". Industry piles up where it is already deeply rooted. These areas, of which Scotland is a special example, will fall back towards the condition they were in before the war. I beg and pray the Government, if in the case of jute they have embarked on a return to a policy of allowing no consideration except that of sheer competitive costs, on the most doctrinal and classic argument, to consider the consequences for these Scottish areas.
Now a word about the policies which we would advocate there. In the case of jute in Dundee there are two. There is the far more drastic application of the Distribution of Industry Acts; not only the encouragement of industries to come

to Dundee and such places, but the much more drastic action of preventing them from going elsewhere, which we did through the Labour Government.
We have expressed clearly our view that there should be a Government buying agency for jute and that its import into this country should be subject to Government regulation. I do not say that regulation should necessarily be used to give the Dundee industry a monopoly of this market; certainly not, but it should be used to regulate the position, to ensure that if there had to be contraction in the Dundee industry, it did not take place until alternative employment and alternative industries had been provided, in order to prevent the market forces having their will as they had before the war.
That is our policy. That is the natural policy for the Socialist Party to advocate. We believe that only by the application of those principles will a situation which has already begun to strike the greatest possible apprehension in the hearts of our constituents be resolved, and that only by those means will that apprehension be removed.

5.37 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: Apart from the party politics of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not disagree very much with what he says in his plea for the jute industry. However, I think he has exaggerated a little. He talked about laissez faire and the market forces of the world and striking a mortal blow at the industry, but I do not think he is fair to the Government in going as far as that, at any rate at this stage.
Before speaking of the jute industry, I will say one or two words of general application. We are discussing today an Amendment dealing with the Estimates for the current year, but it is fair, as everybody else has done so, to refer to the successes of the past year. It is right that Scottish people should have emphasised to them the great successes we have had in production—in shipping, steel, the output of tweeds, in particular, in electrical engineering and electrical goods and in whisky.
I give those as examples—there are others—to show that Scotland in 1956 was producing in many cases at a record


level. Unemployment was very low, although higher than in England, and output was 2 per cent. higher than in 1955, whereas for Great Britain generally it was stationary. This shows that the experience of Scotland was more favourable than the experience of Great Britain. It is fair to say that in order to put the position in perspective. Anyone who reads the Report of the Clydesdale Bank will realise that Scotland had a good year in 1956 and that the prospects for this year, except for certain black spots, are good for the continuation of successful trade.

Mr. John Rankin: Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)rose—

Sir J. Duncan: I do not want to be long.

Mr. Rankin: Nor do I. Would the hon. and gallant Member tell me whether the figures he has just given were derived from the Report of the Clydesdale Bank?

Sir J. Duncan: Yes.
I said that I do not want to be long, and I want to go straight to the jute industry. A blow has recently been struck at it, but not a mortal blow, and I want to find out the reasons which induced the Government to take the action which they took. As I understand the position, the imports of raw jute are roughly 120,000 tons a year, valued at £10 million; the production of jute yarn at home is between 2,000 and 3,000 tons a week; and the production of jute cloth is about 1,600 tons a week. In addition, there are imports of jute goods through Jute Control of about 1,000 tons a week.
The production in Dundee and district—and I wish to emphasise the words "and district"—has been static; it has been fully maintained through the years and there has not been very much variation. The contraction has been in the imported jute goods, which were roughly 16,000 tons a month before the war. Although there are big variations between different months, the figure since the war has been about 10,000 tons a month. That is where the contraction has occurred—in imports of jute goods, mainly jute cloth.
Is it not a good thing that the jute trade at home has been maintained in

volume and throughput but that the protection given to it has reduced the amount of imports? There is a certain amount of export trade to set against the bill for imports, although I admit that the bulk of the home production is used for the home trade. The export figures are, jute yarn £500,000, jute bags £2 million, and other manufactures of jute £500,000. These figures all come from the Digest of Statistics. In addition, there is a very big export which is not included in the trade returns. I refer to other exports which are packaged in jute, for instance bacon. I do not know the figure for that but it must be considerable.
The Government have said that we are losing the trade to paper. What I am not clear about is whether Dundee is losing the trade to paper or whether the imported trade is being lost to paper. I cannot obtain any figures to show the production of paper bags in this country. I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to go into this question of figures to prove the Government's case, if he can, that there has been a switch-over to paper. Home deliveries plus exports of all paper other than newsprint were roughly 51,000 tons a week in 1939. That includes every form of paper other than newsprint. In 1956 the figure was 74,000 tons a week. In other words, there has been a very big expansion in the output of paper at home. How much of that is bags? That is what we are discussing today, because the Government allege that Dundee is losing trade because of the competition of paper bags.
The first point I want to put to the Government is this: if they say that the reason for their reduction in the mark-up is substitutes, what are the figures to prove it? What are the figures for the increase in paper bags? What is the reduction in the production of jute in Dundee and district, compared with the reduction in the imported jute goods, with which we should not be so anxiously concerned?
Next, I want to emphasise the importance of the jute trade to the district. I do not think that Dundee itself will be vitally affected by the present markdown from 39—if it is 39—to 30; at the moment the figure is flexible. I do not think that Dundee itself will be very much hurt. I feel, however, that in


Kirriemuir and Forfar, and possibly other parts of Angus, Perthshire and Fife, where the run of the main 36–40–48l0-oz. jute goods are made, it may be much more serious, and I hope that everything which the Government are doing to help other industries to go to Dundee will be extended to the district, wherever there is unemployment because of the Government's action.
For instance, Forfar has 23 per cent. of its labour force engaged directly in the jute industry, and Kirriemuir has also 23 per cent. of its labour similarly engaged, and if those factories close down there will also be a very large indirect effect on the whole of the shopping community, for example. The factories are vitally concerned and cannot easily switch to anything else. They may switch to producing a different type of speciality jute, but their looms and workers are geared to the main run of production. I should therefore like to plead that if the Distribution of Industry Act is to be vigorously pressed in Dundee it should also be extended to the other towns in Angus, Perthshire and Fife if they, too, are affected.
I want, next, to deal with the effect of this mark-down to 30 on employment. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that he would make no estimate, but I have had an estimate made. The number of workers in the jute trade—not in Dundee but in the trade as a whole—is about 19,600. The number varies. On the same date that that figure was given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, the number of unemployed was shown as 983. If we take a figure, broadly speaking, at 20,000 engaged in the jute trade, with 1,000 of them unemployed, then, on a 30 per cent. mark-down, my information is that 1,200 will be put out of work because of the switch-over to paper and 2,000 more will be put out of work because of the effect on the traditional jute production of the imported jute bags being sold more freely at a lower price. The total unemployment, according to my figures, will be 3,000 instead of 1,000.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that he could make no estimate, but I think we must face the fact that there will be some unemployment, and the Government must make provision for overcoming the diffi-

culties which will arise from that unemployment. I hope that they will do everything that they can to help those people who are put out of work. It should not be difficult. After all, there are ten women to every eight male workers in the jute industry; the proportion of the workers is eight to ten. It is quite possible that some of these women—for instance some of the married women—may not want to continue in industry. There may be an easement in that way. All the same, the male workers will want work, even if some of the women may not wish to continue in work, and it is important that the Government should do everything they possibly can to see that that work is found.
I am not raising today the question of protection. I am deliberately not doing so, because I do not believe that this problem has anything to do with the European Free Trade Area or the Common Market or anything like that. The Government have acted purely on the ground that doing nothing is hurting the jute trade and that unless something is done the trade itself will be hurt. I warn the Government that if they lower this protection any more, or if in connection with the Common Market and the European Free Trade Area this protection is lessened, I shall bring forward in this House pledges which have been made by Her Majesty's Ministers in the past and by leaders of the Opposition to show that this industry has been promised protection roughly equivalent to the jute control—pledges that this system of jute control will not be altered until some equivalent protection is granted in some other way. We in our part of the world wish to hold the Government to those pledges, because without them, I believe, as the right hon. Gentleman said just now, this industry will be ruined, there will be a very high rate of unemployment in Dundee and district and there will be a great waste of social capital and all the rest.
That leads me to the next question. Is this 30 per cent. to be permanent, or is it the beginning of the slippery slope? Unless the employers in the jute trade—and it is the employers that I am concerned with in this case—can be assured that the 30 per cent. will remain and not be further tinkered with because some one else thinks that it is not enough or


that it is ineffective, as the right hon. Gentleman quoted from the report of the Jute Importers' Association today, there will be no possibility of any future for the industry from the employers' point of view.
The right hon. Gentleman used the word "psychology"—a word which I hate—but I have to use it in this connection. This is the psychology of fear. If in Dundee the employers are left with the impression that this is only a temporary step and that the protection may be reduced later because someone else wants it reduced, then there will be little hope of any reorganisation, modernisation, amalgamations or anything else that the employers might introduce to reduce costs in the future. They must have confidence, at any rate for the next three or four years, in which to replan their organisation to reduce prices to conform with the reduced mark-up.
Hon. Members opposite naturally talk for the workers, but I think that a word is due on behalf of the employers. Although not all of the older workers, who have been in the trade for a long time, can find other work, many of the workers can shift to other jobs. But let us look at this from the employer's point of view. He has his building and machinery and he has invested some £10 million in modernisation of the jute industry since the war. If this trade goes, he cannot switch to anything else. It is a dead loss. The worker can switch much more freely in many cases than the employer. I think that a word is due in their support at the present time, because they will be faced with enormous difficulties unless their position is maintained.
My right hon. Friend referred to Pakistan. It is all jolly fine to be very friendly with Pakistan, but what is it doing? Prices are varying from day to day and week to week. The policy of the Pakistan Government seems to be to create what, I believe, the Socialists call "planned scarcity". I should like to read a paragraph from the Clydesdale and North of Scotland Bank Survey. It says:
As world demand generally for raw jute is increasing, concern is felt in Dundee over the future supply position, and the Pakistan authorities have been asked to relax control over the acreage planted and to establish lower and more stable prices. In March the chairman

of the British Jute Trade Federal Council said that 'a continued policy of planned scarcity and high raw material prices will, sooner or later, result in the further inroads of substitutes and bulk handling into the traditional markets for jute goods', and this warning was repeated by the Chairman of the Jute Importers' Association towards the end of the year.
That is exactly what is happening. Jute at one moment may be £83, and next week it may be £93. It has gone up as recently as May to £123. Part of that is export duty. At the present figure of £110 the present export duty is £9 a ton.
We have to prevent this planned scarcity and this seesawing of prices in such a way that the manufacturers in Dundee who buy raw jute for manufacture can obtain it at much more reasonable and stable prices, so that they can plan their price policy much more reasonably than when prices are seesawing in the way which they are.
I warn my right hon. Friend and the Government that if they go further, having taken this step on practical grounds and not on theoretical grounds, there will be past pledges brought up in this House which they will find difficult to overcome. Meanwhile, we have to accept this markdown from 39 or 40 per cent. to 30 per cent., and we shall watch its effect with very great interest and anxiety. We hope that the Government will do everything they possibly can to get over the evil effects of what they have done to Dundee and district, and that the Distribution of Industry Acts, the redeployment of workers and new factories will take up the slack and help to overcome the difficulties.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) for the research that he has done in this matter. He has produced one most remarkable figure—his estimate of the expected increase in unemployment. I asked the President of the Board of Trade for this information yesterday. I assumed that it was an elementary question which any Minister would ask himself before taking this sort of decision. It is rather remarkable that it should be left to the hon. Member for South Angus to give a figure which the President of the Board of Trade was unable to give.

Sir J. Duncan: My figure is, of course, from private sources. If I am wrong, I shall be only too delighted.

Mr. Thomson: I understand that, and I am most grateful to the hon. Member for having produced a figure. It is, however, a grave reflection on the way in which the President of the Board of Trade has approached this very serious matter that he should have been unable to give any estimate of its affect en employment in the Dundee area.
I intend to be very brief and, therefore, I hope that the House will excuse me for concentrating on the subject of jute. This is much more than the ordinary constituency matter which faces us from time to time. Jute is literally the life of Dundee and district. It absolutely dominates the city, and if anything serious happens to jute it will be the end of the life we know in the district. The decision which the President of the Board of Trade announced yesterday is the first breach in the Government's jute control which has given the city and the district full employment since the beginning of the war. This protection was continued even by the Conservative Government, with its known views on matters of Government interference, because of Dundee's unique position.
The hon. Member for South Angus was a little coy about the various undertakings which had been given by the Government, and merely threatened to quote them. It might be useful if at least one of them was quoted in the debate. The President of the Board of Trade's predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me as recently as March, 1955, in reply to a Question that jute control must be continued. He said that it must be continued because of the heavy concentration of the industry in Dundee and its distance from the main centres of population. He said that if jute control were to disappear,
… there would be a danger of continuing large-scale unemployment.
He went on to use these words:
It is in view of this position that Ministers decided that the industry must be safeguarded ….
I hope that the Government will remember those undertakings.
The same right hon. Gentleman also made this comment on jute control:
I would not say that I defend this as a method of trading.
We on this side of the House understand that expression of view from the Government. He added:
What I suspect is that if I tried to tinker with it and amend it, it may be worse for all concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March. 1955; Vol. 538, c. 2243–5.]
That is exactly what the present President of the Board of Trade has done. He has started to tinker with it and started to amend it, and I have no doubt that it will be worse for all concerned. This, as the hon. Member for South Angus implied even if he did not actually say it, is a breach of faith with the industry which, more than most industries, has responded to appeals from successive Governments to modernise its equipment and invest for the future. It did so on the basis of the undertakings.
It is very difficult to understand why the President of the Board of Trade should choose this moment to announce this first historic breach in a system of protection which has existed for many years. This is not a new problem. The competition of paper bags with jute bags has not suddenly sprung upon us, has not suddenly become acute in 1957. It is something which has been with us for a long time. It is a difficult problem, but it is not a new problem, and yet the Government have chosen the very moment when unemployment in Dundee is running higher than it has done over the past five years to make this decision.
I entered the House of Commons as a result of a by-election when there was a slight dislocation in the jute industry, a dislocation much less than the present one, but causing a great deal of worry in the whole Dundee area. In the five years I have been a Member, unemployment has never been higher than it is at the moment. In addition to the immediate unemployment in Dundee, there is general uncertainty about the future of the jute industry, because of the implications of the proposals for a European Common Market. I agree that this decision is not related to the proposals for a European Common Market, but it would have been much better if the Government had postponed the decision until they were in a position


to make a general statement about their views on the whole future of the industry.
It would be interesting to know exactly why the Government have taken this decision. What were the representations made to the Government? We have not heard very much about them. Can the Secretary of State for Scotland tell us whether the Governments of Pakistan and India have made representations that this step should be taken? Can he tell us from where the representations from other parts of the country have come? I know that there have been no representations in this sense from the Dundee area—quite the reverse.
One is left with the feeling in this case, when dealing with the employment considerations, that the Scottish employment interests have been sacrificed to very much less important employment interests in other parts of the country. The President of the Board of Trade obviously felt uneasy when announcing this decision and said that he would make every effort to keep up the level of employment in the Dundee area by introducing new industries. It is a bit of a cheek for the right hon. Gentleman to use that sort of argument in these circumstances and to expect us to have very much faith in it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said, he is the person who has closed the local office of the Board of Trade, along with other local offices throughout the country, and is also the right hon. Gentleman who has weakened the distribution of industries policy by refusing Government-financed factories to let, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
In a debate in another place a few months ago Lord Bilsland, a most eminent authority on these matters in Scotland, said that the distribution of industries policy had become a dead letter as a result of the actions of the present Government. We cannot have any great confidence that the present Government will be able to produce the new indus tries which will be needed in Dundee if the jute industry there declines. There is a growing conviction that the President of the Board of Trade, with his well-known doctrinaire dislike of Government interference, wants to destroy jute control

utterl, no matter what the cast to Dundee.
I profoundly hope that I am wrong and that the Secretary of State for Scotland can give the pledge for which the hon. Member for South Angus asked this afternoon. The jute industry must have some sort of assurance that this will not be the first step of many, an assurance that the industry can go ahead and make its plans on the basis of some sort of assurance for the future, no matter how wrong this step may be.
I am told that although the industry has an excellent investment record, its investment plans are already coming to a stop because of the uncertainty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) referred to the action of the President of the Board of Trade as a body blow to the jute industry in Dundee. It is a body blow. It is very serious in itself, but we are afraid that it is merely the first blow of a softening-up process before the right hon. Gentleman finally delivers a knock-out blow to the jute industry in the city and, therefore. to the whole life of the community in that part of Scotland as we know it.
I shall be as relieved as anybody if, by the conclusion of the debate, we have been given an assurance that that is not so and given a repetition of the guarantees made to the jute industry in the past. If those assurances are given, nobody will be more pleased than I. The speeches we have heard this afternoon indicate that this is not a party matter, although there are political differences on how to tackle the problem. In the general interests of the whole community in this part of Scotland, I hope that we can have a reassurance from the Government before the debate ends.

6.10 p.m.

Sir James Hutchison: A debate upon Scottish industry in general must, from the nature of things, take rather a special form. After one has examined the statistics and compared progress and advancement between Scotland and England—which was a technique employed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)—one finds that the questions which affect Scottish trade, in general terms, are the same as those which affect the trade of the whole island, for our economies are so integrated—and


long may they remain so—that we can rarely single out from the general picture a problem which is a specifically Scottish one.

Mr. Willis: The jute industry.

Sir J. Hutchison: That is not a general question. If the hon. Member will contain his ebullience for a moment I shall come to that aspect of the problem. Every now and again, either in respect of a whole trade or of a particular distinction, some sort of peak in the graph emerges which concerns Scotland more obviously than it concerns the country in general. So the debate tends to move from the general into the particular.
I have no complaint about that; it is just what I shall do myself. But it was under those circumstances that we listened to the interesting speeches on the plight of the jute industry made by the last three hon. Members. Perhaps they will excuse me if I do not follow them on that subject, because it is not a problem which particularly affects my constituency. It has been deployed with skill and eloquence already, and we must all he concerned that some solution to this grave problem will be found.
I want to pass on to a theme which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Hamilton, not only today but on many other occasions, and by many others, namely, Scotland's need for diversification of industry. This is one of the distinctions which, in general terms, applies to Scotland more than it does to Great Britain as a whole. We have pressed for a diversification of industry because experience has shown that the heavy industries upon which we have been so dependent tend to be those which are hit first in a recession and which recover last after the recession is over.
But another aspect of the matter, which was a new one to me, was brought out in evidence given before the Estimates Committee by Mr. Allan Young, the Board of Trade Controller for Scotland. It is so new to me, and it is the first time that I have heard this explanation given by anybody of eminence, that I think the House may be interested to hear it. Mr. Young was giving reasons why Scotland suffers this stubborn and continuing excess of unemployment over the general average for the country. He said:

The reasons, to put it mildly, are obscure. I think it is because we are still over-dependent on the heavy industries, the heavy basic industries like shipbuilding and steel, and very heavy engineering, industries which do not lend themselves to the breaking down of the skilled process to some simple assembly job that will absorb semi-skilled or unskilled labour; and the only way in which I can see the problem being solved is to bring in a greater number of those industries. The reason why you have unemployment reaching almost vanishing point in the Birmingham area and in London is because you have such a variety of light employment where the skill is transferred from the bench to the machine, and the operative, after a few weeks' training, is capable of doing some job and earning his wages. Now, we do not have a sufficient amount of that type of industry, in my opinion, in Scotland …
I agree with that conclusion, but I have never heard it analysed in that way before.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: Shame. There is nothing new about that.

Mr. Cyril Bence: We have been on about that for forty years.

Sir J. Hutchison: I have often heard the plea for a general diversification of industry because it would be for the benefit of the country, but I have never heard the argument put forward, in support of the case, that the shipbuilding and heavy industry find it more difficult to accept unskilled labour and put it on a job as the less heavy industries and light industries can do.

Mr. Bence: The point has been put in the House many times, in that manner and in another manner—a manner in which I have very often put it and in which I believe the hon. Member for Follok (Mr. George) has always put it. namely, that the diversification of industry is essential because, by diversification, the use of light industry and the conversion of metals by automatic machine processes, we can increase the conversion value of raw materials, thereby raising the standard of employment.

Sir J. Hutchison: That is another aspect of the same problem, and I am glad to hear it. All that has happened by my reading this evidence is that we find ourselves in general agreement, and it adds to the argument in favour of a general diversification of industry. Mr. Young went on to say:


If you wanted to get a real footing in the vehicle industry in Scotland I think you would need to start at the bottom and the bottom is the diversification of the steel industry. The steel industry in Scotland is geared to the shipbuilding industry, and to heavy engineering. If we were making light steel sheet and strip, that at least might be one factor in attracting up there industries that would make use of that lighter material.
This theme of the diversification of industry has been preached by Professor Cairncross in his Report, which is so often referred to and reiterated year after year by the Scottish Council and by myself whenever I have the opportunity. Only the day before yesterday there was an article in the Observer—a very interesting review of Scottish conditions—in which the writer once vain emphasised the importance to Scotland of the diversification of industry.
The main instruments for this diversification have hitherto been the Distribution of Industry Acts, about which we have heard so much this afternoon. Let us admit straight away that those Acts have had a considerable amount of success. The evidence is provided by the fact that American companies have come to Scotland and established themselves there. But a further opportunity for the diversification of industry in Scotland presents itself under the Housing and Town Development Bill, under which grants can be earned for the provision of factory premises. I hope that this will be taken full advantage of.
I am not frightfully impressed by the descriptions of hon. Members opposite of the calamitous results of the migration of some Scotsmen beyond the Scottish borders. Scotland has been greatly advantaged by the pioneering spirit of those Scotsmen who, wherever one goes in the world, can be found in positions of responsibility and very often making very great successes of their careers. Our prestige, wherever we go in the world, is immensely greater than that to which our simple size and population would entitle us. Those eminent Scotsmen have come to London and have gone all over the world, generally to establish themselves successfully and always to the advantage of Scotland.
Nevertheless, that leaves the unemployment question, and the need for improvement to be brought about. Since

June, 1956, the Government have changed their policy under the Distribution of Industry Acts and will now make the provision of factories in Development Areas available only under special circumstances. I am at one with the hon. Member for Hamilton and his hon. Friends who think that the provision of a factory, made available upon a rental basis, plays a very big part in attracting industry to Scotland. It has been used by Lord Chandos in Northern Ireland with very great effect, and some of the baits that the Northern Ireland Government have offered to industry to go there have been extremely attractive.
If the Government have changed their policy in regard to the provision of factories in Development Areas—and there is justification for this change in regard to many of the Development Areas because many of them have now worked themselves into positions, because of the facilities given to them, where the unemployment is no greater than the general unemployment figure outside—they must make available that same system in pockets of Scotland which are not scheduled as Development Areas but where unemployment is excessively high. I think Greenock was mentioned today—I do not know whether the figure is accurate—as having an unemployment percentage of 6 per cent.

Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: It is.

Sir J. Hutchison: I understand that somewhere near Moray and Nairn the percentage is about 9 per cent. I consider that a system which has worked well in the Development Areas in building up the situation there, should be used in suitable areas outside the scheduled Development areas; not everywhere, but where there is a stubborn continuance of unemployment. The Select Committee on Estimates in its Report agrees, at any rate up to a point, with what I am saying, because it advocates that there should be a complete review of the present distribution of industry policy. The Government should use a medicine which has worked well where the sickness has been diagnosed, in the Development Areas. The same sickness can be discerned in places outside the Development Areas, and so I suggest that the Government should apply the same medicine there.
This question of the diversification of industry is linked with and leads me to my next point which was also spoken about by the hon. Member for Hamilton, and I agree with much of what he said. It is the projected steel strip mill. That would play a big part in the diversification of industry and the existing reliance on heavy industry in Scotland. Let us look at his problem for a moment. There are three principal contenders for this steel strip mill—the Grangemouth area in Scotland, Newport in South Wales and Lincolnshire. All three places have some advantages and some disadvantages.
Regarding Scotland, the main argument must rest upon this need for diversification which has been supported by nearly all the hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon, and by the eminent authorities which I have already quoted. The second advantage is—and it is linked up with the unemployment question—the available pool of labour, more available, I understand, than in the other competing areas. All three areas must import their ore, as has been said. All three areas will have to make provision for some additional housing and upon those grounds we are on level terms.
It is claimed for Scotland that they will be able to supply competitively steel strip for the whole of Scotland and as far South as Manchester. It is true that with the minimum economic size of mill, with an output of certainly not less than 1 million tons a year and probably nearer 3 million tons a year, that will not at once be absorbed in the area. One of the disadvantages for Scotland is that the demand for steel strip lies in the London and Birmingham areas. But after all, there is an export market, and Grangemouth is well situated to be able to take advantage of it. If the European Free Trade Area scheme comes about, I think we may justifiably hope that that export market will be expanded.
In Wales there are two steel strip mills already, and there is one just over the Border. Surely it would be ridiculous to put another there; at any rate, it would be ridiculous in the face of a general scheme for the diversification of industry all over Britain because it would be the very converse of diversification. Within all three places some expenditure on port facilities will be required if ships of

20,000 tons are to be the ore-carriers. Hon. Members will know well that the tendency is for all ships—particularly tankers, but also dry cargo ships—to go on growing in size, and so there is no great disadvantage to Grangemouth compared with the others in the port facilities proffered.
The main difficulty, as has been said, is that of coking coal. I believe that the programme of the National Coal Board was drawn up to make provision for the Colville expansion, and I agree absolutely that it would be foolish to try to withdraw coking coal from the Colville requirements from where the output would be absorbed, to divert it into something where the absorption of the product is more dubious. Therefore the Colville needs should be satisfied first. They are not really Colville needs, they are the needs for heavy industry all over the country, but I am using the phrase "Colville needs" for convenience.
As a shipbuilder, I know that we have been short of many sections and plates for a considerable time, but I do not believe it impossible for the National Coal Board so to adjust its programme as to be able to provide for the Colville requirements and also for a steel strip mill. Has not a seam been discovered in south-west Lanarkshire, and are not there thought, or indeed proved, to be considerable quantities of coking coal under the Forth? Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend and the Government to call upon the National Coal Board to answer the simple question, whether within a reasonable period of time it could make provision for and produce the quantities of coal needed both for the Colville expansion and also for a steel strip mill in Scotland. Until we have a categorical answer from the Board that both cannot be done, I think that the whole position should be examined.
I wish now to turn to a somewhat lighter subject compared with that of heavy industry, the question of whisky exports. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice with relief that hon. Members find this new introduction into the menu appetising.

Mr. James H. Hoy: A bit more spirit.

Sir J. Hutchison: All right, a bit more spirit. We will see what we can do.
Everyone knows that whisky is a great dollar earner. It is also a most important industry in the Scottish economy, and, indeed, in the whole British economy. I think that it is being hit in an unfair way by our allies just across the Channel. For a number of years the value of exports of whisky into France have been at the rate of about £550,000 a year. That is really a trifling sum. But even this, by a recent enactment of the French Government, has been cut down to £110,000 a year, which is only a trifle. The question is all tangled up with the availability of foreign exchange and international exchanges, and so on. It is a complicated question relating to the internal economy of France. I do not propose to go into it, because it does not matter to me whether the whisky is bought by making sterling available at a premium to the importer, or whether it is a straightforward import-export business.
What I care about is that already a fictitiously small amount of whisky which was going to France has been cut to almost nothing. When at the same time we notice that the average value of imported French wines over the last three years amounts to about £4 million worth a year, and that the value of imported brandy from France is about £3 million a year, it makes the situation look almost ludicrous. I imagine that whisky exporters and distillers would be happy to trade a bottle of whisky for a bottle of brandy, and I do not think that that would be a bad bit of barter dealing. I suggest to my right hon. Friend, therefore, that he might approach the French Government on that basis.
Perhaps some hon. Members may have noticed that the British Medical Association has been meeting in Newcastle and some interesting remarks have been made about whisky. It has been said at that meeting that whisky is in some cases the best drug for the relief of pain. Professor Charles Robb reported:
We put our patients on big and rapid doses of whisky up to the maximum tolerance in individual cases.
Professor Robb is quoted in the Press as saying:
The best treatment for this condition is rest. The best rest is sleep. The best way to get sleep is to relieve pain and the best way to relieve pain is to give whisky.

I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the best way to sell whisky to France is to get Professor Robb into the Board of Trade. If any hon. Member is interested in knowing Professor Robb's address, may I say that he practises as Professor of Surgery at London University.

Mr. Rankin: Where is the hospital?

Sir J. Hutchison: I presume that it is nearby.
The third point concerns Prestwick Airport. Ever since the war we have been given to understand that Prestwick would be maintained as a first-class international airport. Recently, the Canadian user, Mr. McGregor, President of Trans-Canadian Airlines, was reported as saying that unless extensions to the runways at Prestwick were put in hand soon and completed within four years its principal transatlantic functions would cease.
Two years ago, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation arranged that alternative runways would be laid down. That took place, but the main runways are still too short for the big Britannias which are due to come into operation almost at once, and a good deal too short for the new jet airliners which are planned to be used in the future.
I have received a letter from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in which, I am delighted to say, he has stated that after the investigation into the situation at Prestwick by the panel which was appointed by the I.C.A.O., and after a visit by himself quite recently, his Ministry has decided that it will undertake the strengthening of the main runway and its extension from 7,000 to 8,000 ft. He states that if Treasury consent is given—I doubt whether the Treasury can withhold consent in a case like this—the work will start this autumn and will enable the big Britannias to land at Prestwick next year. This is an important and most welcome bit of progress.
As regards jet aircraft, the Ministry take the quite reasonable view that, of the Boeing and Douglas jets being built in America for Transatlantic travel, one has not been completely built and the other is still in the prototype stage, and that to ask for the runway to be further extended at a cost of some £5 million up to the 9,400 ft. which is required by


the jet aircraft before we have any assurance that the aircraft will be able to fly, that some will be bought by the operators, and that the operators plan to use them at Prestwick, is asking the Government to go a bit too far. The Ministry tells me that it is in consultation with American operators to get answers to those questions. It is only reasonable that we should agree to wait until those answers have shown that such extension and lengthening of the runway is justified.
I would add a word of warning on the scheme. It may be too late to extend our runway after the aircraft has come into operation. When Stephen Leacock was asked the best recipe for making an asparagus bed he replied, "Dig a deep soil trench three years ago." That is the sort of thing which is needed if we are to hold on to the transatlantic service. We must have the runway ready ahead of the arrival of the aircraft otherwise they may be diverted and we may never get them back.
I welcome, as I believe the whole of Scotland does, the limited progress conveyed to me by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. We welcome what appears to be a policy of recognising that. Prestwick must continue to be maintained as a first-class international airport. We hope that as soon as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has information which shows that the runways must be further strengthened he will keep to his pledge, strengthen them, and be ready to receive the largest aircraft that fly.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. David J. Pryde: Whatever the duties of the Minister of Labour are it cannot be gainsaid that he has painted the clouds with sunshine. Unfortunately, Scotland does not reflect the sunshine which has been portrayed. I am not exaggerating when I say that the keynote of the debate on both sides of the House is deep-seated apprehension.
It is well founded. We are told that the jute industry is in a bad way. The latest thrust at jute will react right throughout Central Scotland. It will affect Rosslyn, Bonnyrigg, Eskbank, Glasgow, Glenpatrick, Stirling, Ayr and the Kilmarnock area, as well as many

other towns. On coal, we are told that there are more people employed today than previously. How many licences have been issued in recent years to allow private owners to operate surface mines etc., especially in Lanarkshire, Peebles-shire, West Lothian and Midlothian?
We are told that objections to the strip mill are that there is a shortage of coking coal in Scotland. In the early 1880's two companies in Midlothian had the sole contract for supplying the London County Council with coking coal. There are more seams of this coal in Midlothian than anywhere else in Britain and its calorific quality is higher than that of any other in Britain. We have square miles of the ingredient which is so essential to the making of steel—lime. All the minerals which are required in the process of making steel are nearer the Forth than they are to any other available port in Britain. It is in the Arctic Circle that we find these rare ores which are required for that purpose.
There is no good in people coming with the ghost story that Scotland is not well equipped and well placed for the opening of a great steel industry. One part of Scotland more than any other shows the inefficiency of having a Government situated in London. We had an industry employing 12,000 people and producing more than 3 million tons of rich shale. We turned a certain part of it into very-high-grade octane spirit and we produced also a very heavy supply of detergents and various other products. Today it employs only 3,000 people. The others have all gone from the district all over the world. I have signed many a paper protesting at this and asking why they do not stay. One authority said, "In the East of Scotland no people travel so far and extend their working day so much as people in the West Calder area." The shopkeepers tell me that in that area they are on the verge of bankruptcy because no one who used to he employed in the area now purchases anything from them. They have to go to Edinburgh and possibly further than any one else in the East of Scotland has to go.
The Minister mentioned the Border Counties as being a district which could be looked on with some degree of satisfaction. At least one of our factories in the Borders is equipped with what is


probably one of the finest machines in the world, but it is circumscribed. It has no room for expansion. Here in London during the war it was dictated that those factories were not to be extended into Midlothian or West Lothian. They had to go further afield. It was rather ridiculous to send the extension to Arbroath or the Leven Valley when it could have been fulfilling a very necessary function by providing employment in the Calders area, which was the first area to be scheduled under the Distribution of Industry Act. Yet nothing has been done.
On the subject of jute I would point out that today the Board of Trade allows foreign manufacturers to bring cotton carpets to this country and sell them in competition with our own product in Scotland, yet the product of the foreigner is not of the same quality as the product of Scotland. A jute-backed carpet will sell anywhere, but when I put forward the idea that workers in foreign countries are not paid the same rate of wages as the Scottish workers I was told that is not the case. I was told that the wages are comparable. Then what about the raw material? Is it taken from the Congo by slave labour, or is it in the banking system of Belgium that a closely-guarded subsidy is poured into the industry and poured into the British market against our own product?
Every hon. Member, on either side of the House, who has spoken tonight has pointed out that the Government must do something. We have been told that the present situation has been caused because the Government have abolished the idea of building factories or financing their building. What is a Government for? Is not it for running the economy of the country? When things are going well, the Government of the day take all the credit. When things are going not so well, they search for excuses. There is no doubt that as things stand today this country faces a very black outlook. If there is such uniformity of opinion among back benchers on both sides of the House, why cannot Scottish hon. Members get together, no matter to what party they belong? I have heard it said tonight that this question is more than a party matter. Why then can we not say straight to the Government, "It is your job. You are the Government and you have to do

something in the interests of all the people in Scotland"?
Would it not be to the point if we were to ask them to get ahead with the building of bridges across the Forth and the Tay and in the Highlands? The curse of Scotland is that she has no roads. The Borders have no roads suitable for anything like the traffic which should be pouring out of those counties, yet there is plenty of material to build such roads. In Scotland it should be possible to employ the most easy and cheapest method of construction of roads anywhere in Europe. Apparently we are still thinking in terms of the horse and cart in trying to implement plans laid down between 1945 and 1950 for an expanding industry. We require an expanded industry.
One wonders just how much the Common Market will affect the industries of Britain. We cannot expect Scottish manufacturers and Scottish workers to embrace the Common Market with enthusiasm, because we fear the effect it may have on our agriculture. I ask the Minister to institute a searching of the heart and mind of the Government and to try not to be prejudiced by the idea that Scotland gets more than its share. If all the accounts concerning oil were gone into, we should find that in Scotland we could produce oil more cheaply than anywhere in the world.

6.45 p.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Pryde) referred to the Border area. One of the counties which 1 represent he previously represented, and it is one of the real Border counties.
Earlier this afternoon, during the speech of the Minister of Labour, I interjected in relation to the Royal and Ancient Burgh of Jedburgh. I wish to direct the main part of my remarks to the difficulties of that burgh. My right hon. Friend explained to the House that in the Borders generally there is a most remarkable condition in relation to employment. The official records show that last month there were 176 unemployed in the Borders. In the three counties I have the honour to represent there are something over 700 unfilled places. There are those vacants positions with no one to fill them.


Jedburgh is in an entirely different position and it is a complete anachronism in the situation in the Borders, for there we have people not doing the work they used to do in the North British Rayon mill, but who are still employed in other industries. The provost, members of the community of Jedburgh and all Border people are concerned about the difficulties that face the burgh.
I have had occasion to be in contact with the Minister of Labour, the President of the Board Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Council and the leaders of the two main trade unions which previously had most interest in the North British Rayon mill. We have met together with representatives of the industry and the Scottish Council at a meeting in the town hall of Jedburgh. I have taken the trouble to go to Glasgow and talk with the official receiver, who is responsible for the residual part of the North British Rayon mill. The provost, members of the council and 1 have received nothing but sympathetic and interested concern from the Ministers to whom we appealed.
The Secretary of State for Scotland last week received the provost and the dean of guild from Jedburgh. They were satisfied with the courtesy of the reception and the understanding of the Secretary of State with the problem that faces Jed-burgh. I am confident that the other Ministries are conversant with the practical difficulties, but the fact that we have people fully employed does not detract from the fact that the burgh itself is in difficulty. Ten or twelve bus loads of womenfolk go to work in Hawick, Galashiels and Selkirk. The tendency is that they will do their shopping in Hawick or Galashiels where, perhaps, there is a greater selection in the shops than in Jedburgh.
The younger girls are invited to dances in the other burghs. For instance, they have dances in the Tower Hotel and other hotels in Hawick, and the girls return to Jedburgh late at night. The social amenities and the attractiveness of the community are therefore running down, which ought to worry all of us. It is strange that in the midst of plenty there is difficulty. I believe that in Jedburgh thirty good, new council houses stand vacant for the want of occupants because one mill, which was not in the

tradition of the wool trade in the burgh, closed down.
What the burgh seeks is a further assurance from the Secretary of State and, through him, from the other Ministries that they will never desist from endeavouring to direct a company or companies to occupy the premises vacated by the North British Rayon Ltd. mill.—It is a splendid site, with ample power. I understand that most of the buildings have been cleared of the previous machinery and stand vacant and ready for occupation.
I am sure that we shall be given as much relief as possible by the Minister, but until some new industry is brought to Jedburgh, I shall continue to make the plea that my right hon. Friend must spare no effort to see that an industry is at least invited to go there. I believe that there are contacts to be made through inquiries in America about possible sites and sources of labour in this country. The only difficulty which I see about people contemplating a move to Jedburgh is that they might think that there is full employment in the burgh, whereas at least some hundreds of these people are willing and most anxious to work within the burgh rather than travel daily out of the burgh.
There should be no fear that a pool of labour will not be available. It is expert and loyal labour which, like other labour on the Borders, has not been involved in disputes.—It is known to have been loyal to its previous employers. This pool of labour is available.
I ask my right hon. Friend to assure the people of Jedburgh that this situation will never be forgotten and that he and the Minister of Labour will persist in endeavouring to persuade or direct some new employment to Jedburgh which will resolve this difficulty of a burgh which should not be allowed to run down.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: It might surprise the House to know that if an individual in my division is working on repair, refitting, painting or any conversion work on a ship in dry dock he is amply protected by a code of regulations, but that if he is working in a wet dock in my division and is doing the same


work he is without protection. I hope that the Minister of Labour will be even more astonished. In spite of the fact that when he is working on a ship in wet dock the danger is greatly increased, because he is subject to the movement due to the buoyancy of the ship and to the movement caused by the incoming or the outgoing tide, the man has no protection; where the danger is increased, the protection is diminished. I hope that that will surprise the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, whom we welcome here this afternoon.
What is even more surprising, in view of that situation, is that in 1950 one of the last acts of the then Labour Government was to draw up this code of regulations which I have in my hand, in order to try to bring wet dock operations into harmony with operations in dry docks. Unfortunately, before the regulations could be approved by Parliament there was a regrettable change in Government, and this code of regulations has been lying in the offices of the Ministry of Labour since the last Labour Government left office.
Yesterday I tried to obtain a copy of the draft regulations which the Labour Government had published. I received a copy only at five o'clock this afternoon. The reason for the delay was that no one in the right hon. Gentleman's office seemed to know anything about it. It is a very important matter, and I thought that I would raise it because in due course before the Session terminates I hope that the Minister will agree to meet those of us—not all of us—who are interested in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing divisions in order that we may talk over this matter and see whether we cannot convince him of its urgency and have the regulations which apply to dry docks extended to wet docks.
I want to say a few words on the subject of shipbuilding and engineering. We have heard a good deal today about Dundee, and very properly so. I am sure that on both sides of the House we want to see this team spirit. We want to feel, "If you hit one bit of Scotland, you hit the lot. We are a team."

Commander Donaldson: Celtic or Rangers?

Mr. Rankin: I said "hear, hear" when the hon. and gallant Member was speaking of Jedburgh.

Commander Donaldson: The hon. Member said that we were all a team. I asked him whether the team was Celtic or Rangers.

Mr. T. Fraser: It does not matter. It is a Scottish team.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, it is a Scottish team.
Both my hon. Friends from Dundee very properly dealt with the problems of Dundee. This is not merely Dundee's case but Scotland's case. I hope it will be of interest to hon. Members on both sides to be informed that in Glasgow we have a somewhat similar set up. In the City, there are 51,000 people engaged in the engineering industry. There are 12.000 engaged in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry. Altogether 60,000 people are engaged in all the other forms of productive labour in Glasgow. It will readily be seen, therefore, that the two major productive industries in Glasgow employ more people than all the other productive industries put together. That italicises the dependence of Glasgow on these two great occupations and the need for full employment in them. Because of that, the shipbuilder's order book becomes very important, and so does the output of ships.
Here, I must dissent a little from some of the things that have been said earlier, because, according to my figures, while the orders on hand are good, the numbers and the gross tonnage of ships for 1956 were down compared with 1955. My figures, derived from shipbuilding sources, show that in 1956 121 ships of a gross tonnage of 506,429 tons were launched, but that in 1955 131 ships of a gross tonnage of 569,235 tons were launched. On Clydeside, Tayside and Deeside output was down. Only on the Forth was there any increase. As I say, I have taken those figures from shipbuilding sources—

Mr. J. C. George: Will the hon. Gentleman mention the value?

Mr. Rankin: The value of the ships?

Mr. George: Yes.

Mr. Rankin: I must apologise to the House. I cannot give that information


offhand. I meant to give the gross value later on, if the hon. Gentleman will just wait a little. What I want to emphasise at the moment is that in my division, which is so largely dependent on shipbuilding and engineering, and in the City of Glasgow as a whole, even a small fall in output sends a shiver through the older men, because memories of 1933 still persist.
In 1933, the gross tonnage launched on Clydeside was 56,000 tons, as against the 506,429 tons of last year, so that even though last year's output represented a fall from the previous year's, what a change it represents from the 56,000 tons of 1933. And what that change means in health, wealth and happiness to working people is not easy to put into words. Yet the advance that it represents does not blind us to the fact that Scotland—and Glasgow in particular—is still too dependent on the heavy engineering industries and too short of the lighter industries, such as radio, aircraft and the motor industry.
Moreover, the shipbuilding industry is not getting sufficient steel in proper sequence to hold its place in world competition. As a result, only once since 1945 have we reached a total output, in U.K. figures, of 1½ million tons of shipping. That was in 1954. Yet our shipyards today are equipped to produce 1¾ tons of shipping annually. We have the men; we have the materials; but deliveries are not forthcoming because of the shortage of steel.
While we congratulate the steel industry on raising its annual output to 21 million tons, I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House that there is still need for far more steel production. In that connection, I want to ask the Secretary of State to tell us how far the further extension and modernisation at Ravenscraig and at Clydebridge which have Just been announced will enable Scottish shipbuilders to get steel in sufficient quantities when they need it so that they can make the fullest use of their capital equipment and manpower.
I have no figures for the Scottish shipping industry's exact requirements, and I would urge the Secretary of State to try to put, either into the Scottish Digest of Statistics or into the Report that we are now discussing, a little more information—we have a good deal, I

admit—on the statistical side. I am told, however, that the shipbuilding industry as a whole could take an extra 75,000 to 100,000 tons of steel per year, and I should like to know from the Secretary of State how much of that demand will be met by these two new projects.
The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) asked if I could give figures of the value of our shipping output. Last year, the value was £200 million—which is, of course, a very important contribution to our wealth—and we exported £93 million of shipping. We must maintain that position, and to maintain it we must get more steel—but not at the expense of the light industries. We want the strip mill at Grangemouth. I support everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) about that, though it is more sheet steel that I want and not more strip. I still want the strip, but I want it in addition to the sheet.
I was impressed by some statistics I read in the Digest which comes to us twice a year. I chanced to look at the page which deals with the population of Scotland by regions. I took 1911 as my starting point. That is purely an arbitrary date, and it does not matter, because I could have taken any year on that page and it would have shown the same sort of result. The population of the central counties in 1911 was 3,286,000. It had risen in 1956 to 3,748,000. By "central counties" we mean Ayr, Lanark, Bute, Stirling and Fife—that belt around the Forth and the Clyde of which we spoke a good deal during the Committee stage of the Town Development (Scotland) Bill. Therefore, in that area we had an increase in population over those years of 462,000.
I looked at what had happened in the Highland counties in the same period, and I found there was a decrease in the population of 64,000. I looked next at the figure for the Border counties in the same years and found that the decrease was 12,000. The north-eastern counties for the same period showed a decline of 4,000, and only in one little corner of Scotland, the south-western counties, taking in Dumfries, Stranraer and Newton Stewart, thriving, healthy and growing areas, was there any increase at all, and there it was but a very small one, only 4,000.
Had the population of Scotland been falling in that period, these figures would not have been remarkable, but the population of Scotland had risen from 4,761,000 to 5,147,000, an increase of 386,000. We are, thus, faced with the fact that, while the population is increasing in the central belt and, of course, we welcome an increase in population, it is decreasing steadily over whatever period of years one cares to choose in that report in other parts of Scotland. In two areas of Scotland, the Highlands and the Border, the decline has been particularly marked. Despite the fact that we have spent money—I will not say money galore—and have done a great deal—again, I will not say we have done everything we could have done—to arrest the decline of population which has gone on in the Highlands, yet it still persists.
One can go back in the Report as far as one likes. In 1851, the population of the Highland counties was 396,000, and the fall continues through every census year until December, 1956, when the figure became 278,000. In the Border counties, the same alarming erosion is going on, although not at such a high rate.
These overall trends show an unhealthy state of affairs in Scotland. We may be doing well in this industry or in that, but these trends in population, the decline which is taking place throughout these large areas in north and south, are not healthy signs. They call for inquiry. If the figures are accurate, as I believe them to be, they show that the sooner we have an overall industrial plan of development the better it will be for Scotland and the Scottish people.
I suggest that the Secretary of State should immediately consider the appointment of a planning commission for Scotland to deal with the diversification of industry, which has been mentioned, to deal with the housing problem, to deal with the industrial problem, and with the necessary dispersal of population which must take place if we are to have some of that variety to be found on the other side of the Border. We want big towns in these sparsely populated areas; we want them in north and south. We want industry. If we are to have those things, they will come not as a result of anything which private enterprise will do; because

private enterprise is primarily concerned with making wealth in those parts of Scotland where it can most easily be made, namely in the central belt. The Government must, therefore, become the pioneer; they must prepare the way for the growth of a Scotland the parts of which will be more evenly balanced than they are today.
We just cannot afford only to expand around the Forth and Clyde basins. The wide open spaces of Scotland today are calling for new industries and for new towns. And this means action by the Government, I hope, therefore, that when the Secretary of State comes to reply tonight he will tell us that, at least, he will consider the proposition I put. If he refuses to do so, generations of Scotsmen yet unborn will live to regret the day when this Tory Government ruled in Britain.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. J. C. George: These debates show that the object of hon. Members on both sides of the House for the future of Scotland is to do everything possible to ensure its prosperity, but I deplore the use of the expressions which we have heard today—"a black outlook", "a state of apprehension", and "shivers down the backs of Scottish people". Of course, there may be one or two places where there are causes for anxiety, but, looking at Scotland in general today, we see a prosperous country.
I did not, this year, concern myself with garnering statistics, because I felt that those matters would be dealt with, as they have been in past years, very ably and fully from the Front Benches, but I have heard and read so much about our basic industries, as it were, failing Scotland, that I thought I should spend the Recess in ascertaining the true position in these matters. When I was a young man in Fife, it used to be said that when the riveters' hammers rang out on the Clyde, all Scotland was prosperous, for ships meant steel and steel meant coal, and we had good wages and reasonably full employment in Scotland.
I have heard it said, and seen in the records that in shipbuilding, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), we are, in fact, losing our place in the world market. The


figures for Britain show that, this year, we have only 25 per cent. of the world's shipbuilding in progress here, compared with 55 per cent. in 1938. I have seen records showing that in steel production we have been losing our place in United Kingdom output. We had third place in 1938, and we are now down to fourth place, and, while Britain as a whole increased its steel output by 98 per cent. since 1938, Scotland increased its output by only 40 per cent.
The other heavy industry, coal, has, on the industrial side and generally in Scotland, acquired an unenviable reputation. Taking Britain as a whole, it has a bad reputation, in that Scotland is the only district in Britain which is winding less coal today than it did when the industry was nationalised and, over the last six years, the Scottish mining industry has shown appalling losses.
These three vital industries appear to be losing their place vis-à-vis the world and vis-à-vis the United Kingdom, and I thought I should go round and make inquiries to see if anything more could be done by those industries to ensure our country's prosperity. After all, our principal object in these debates is to consider ways of increasing the prosperity of the country. In shipbuilding, it seems strange that, in these days of the tanker boom and of great world demand, we should be losing our position and, in fact, as the hon. Member for Govan said, be launching fewer vessels in the last few years than in the past. The hon. Member for Govan did not have available to give to the House the figures for value, which show that the money value of ships built was going up. In 1955, the value of ships sold was £63 million, and in 1956 the value was £83 million. I am sure that the hon. Member will be glad to hear these figures and to know that, although the tonnage is declining, the value is increasing.

Mr. Rankin: The reason I did not bother so much with detail was that I had raised this whole matter earlier this year on the Floor of the House in an Adjournment debate, and I had supplied a great many of those figures then.

Mr. George: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman just had not the details with him, and I am sure that he is glad to have them now and know that the figures are

higher for 1956 than for 1955. It is the fact, however, that the tonnage is going down.
I went round the shipyards and talked to the people in charge and to the people working there. I found there that what the hon. Member for Govan has said was completely accurate—that they were extremely worried about the shortage of steel, and perhaps more worried about the sequence of deliveries than about the actual shortage. I also found an amazing position at one shipyard, the name of which is a household word in Scotland. I had a talk with the production manager where the hulls are put together on the whole issue of shipbuilding. He is a very experienced man. He made the remark to me, "If only we could get rid of restrictive practices in the shipyards, the output of that part of the shipbuilding industry would be increased by 40 per cent. with the present labour force." That is the estimate of a very practical man, steeped in shipbuilding, in which he has spent his whole life, and he is very worried about the labour situation there today. I know that talks are taking place with the Boilermakers' Union, the only union which is not a party to the agreement to deal with demarcation disputes, and great troubles are being caused on the welding side in shipbuilding.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am greatly interested in shipbuilding, too, and I know a great deal about it. May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he realises that the greatest restrictive practice in shipbuilding in Britain today is the high cost of materials, and will he now urge that something should be done to reduce it?

Mr. George: I am coming to the high cost of materials in a moment, but I have listed the three points—the shortage of steel, the bad sequence of deliveries and the effect of restrictive practices. I found also that they were worried about the rising cost of steel and other materials used in shipbuilding.
The point that struck me most is that—and we have the Minister of Labour here today, and I wish him the best of luck in these negotiations that are now taking place—if we could find ways and means to get the Boilermakers' Union to allow more time and motion study or work study to take place and be applied, the


effect on the export trade could be substantial, but I will say no more about that at present, because the matter is now under discussion.
I next went to a steelworks, and here I should like to say that Sir Andrew McCance has been subjected to the most unfair attack from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) today—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, a most unfair attack. I charged the steel industry with failing to keep up with the needs of the country, with restricting exports and increasing imports, and being too late with the expansion of the industry in Scotland. I pointed out that we have been losing our position vis-à-vis the United Kingdom, and I asked why the shortages had taken place. Colvilles made no attempt to deny the fact that, because they had not expanded quickly enough, imports had had to be brought into the country and exports had been prevented from going out. The answer was given yesterday in the statement made by Sir Andrew McCance, who pointed out that, when they considered building Ravenscraig in order to keep their position in the United Kingdom, they came up against snags.
For instance, they applied to the National Coal Board in 1951 for a guarantee that coking coal would be available, and yet they received no guarantee for two solid years. Two solid years in planning development were lost, with the result that output was retarded, through the inability of the National Coal Board to give the guarantee that the coking coal would be available. Because of that, the project has been delayed for two years, though there were other factors operating against it, one of which was the delay by the Iron and Steel Board in reaching a decision. That project was delayed for between two and three years and that is why we have to import steel and why exports have been held back.

Mr. George Lawson: I have myself been informed by one leading official of the trade union movement in Scotland concerned with steel that, right up to the last minute, there was a very great wrestling behind the scenes among the various steel interests as to where the development should go. I have been informed that it was touch and go whether this development came to Ravenscraig

—a very different point, the pooling of the different resources, such as we are seeing now on the strip mill, but which had nothing to do with the question of not providing the coal.

Mr. George: That may well have taken place before this application was made to the Coal Board, or it may have taken place when the Iron and Steel Board was taking six months to make up its mind, but here is the information given yesterday by Sir Andrew McCance, when he announced the second stage of Ravenscraig, costing £32 million. He said:
In 1951 discussions were inaugurated with the Scottish Area Coal Board regarding the future supplies of coking coal, and early in 1953 we were informed that additional coking coal would be available for another blast furnace in 1957 and that we would require to wait until 1959–60 before supplies would become available for a further furnace.
There is the reason for the delay in increasing the output of steel in Scotland. The delay is caused by the National Coal Board failing—and I do not know the reason—to guarantee coal any sooner. Each new furnace needs half-a-million tons extra coking coal, and that is not easily got from any coal field. I can quite appreciate the National Coal Board taking considerable time to make up its mind where to get the extra half-million tons of coking coal, and then a second additional half-million. We know that the third stage of Ravenscraig is at present contemplated, but cannot be settled until a further half-million tons of coking coal can be guaranteed by the National Coal Board. While that company or any major industrial company is waiting to develop a major project, and to know whether it will get the coal required, for any reason whatever, the cost of that project must necessarily rise. The cost of Ravenscraig rose at the rate of 4 per cent. every year, and in the calculations of Colvilles the cost of the second project will increase by 7½ per cent. every year that it is being built or delayed. These are serious figures, and show the need for an urgent decision on very important matters of national importance.

Mr. Steele: I think we have all been following very closely the hon. Gentleman's examination of this question. He told us, first of all, that he went to the shipbuilding industry to get the facts,


and that he then went to the steel industry to get the facts. We are now awaiting his examination of the coal position. Are we to assume that he did not go to the National Coal Board to find out why the failure occurred?

Mr. George: I can deal with only one matter at a time. I hope the hon. Gentleman will hold himself in patience until I come to it. I am dealing now with steel, and I will deal with coal later on.

Mr. Steele: The reason I interrupted was that the hon. Gentleman said he did not know why the National Coal Board had failed. I wanted to know why he did not complete his investigations.

Mr. George: I will answer that one later. The position regarding the steel industry was that there had been delay, but not only were they worried about delay, but also, as the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) said, all other industries which worried about continually rising prices. The cost of coal is going up every year, and the cost of power and gas is also going up, making it impossible to budget ahead. Coal is a double worry to this industry because of delay and rising costs. It was in continual uncertainty, and, quite frankly, some further guarantee of stability is immediately necessary if the industry is to be able to face the years that lie ahead.
The question of a strip mill has been raised once or twice during this debate. I have tried seriously to ascertain the facts. I visited Grangemouth on more than one occasion to see the proposed site and to have an expert point out its advantages and disadvantages. I spoke to South Wales people, and to the steel people in Scotland. I should like very much to be supporting the demand for a strip mill in Scotland, but we do harm if we cry out loudly and continuously for a project if we have not thoroughly examined its basis.

Mr. T. Fraser: That cuts both ways.

Mr. George: That is the way I look at it. We do harm unless we are certain that the project which we advocate is a sound one. I have heard nothing from hon. Members today or from those who spoke to us upstairs to prove that it was a sound proposition.
It should be remembered that the output of a strip mill is at least one million tons a year. That needs 1 million tons of coking coal. It should be remembered also that the Scottish consumption of strip is only 150,000 tons. That leaves at least 850,000 tons to be sold elsewhere.

Mr. Fraser: It does nothing of the kind.

Mr. George: If 150,000 from one million does not leave 850,000, my mathematics are very far wrong.

Mr. Fraser: In the course of these investigations of his, has the hon. Member never discussed these matters with industrialists? Has he not been told by the users of strip steel that they would greatly expand their production of manufactures if they had more strip steel available to them, so that their consumption would exceed 150,000 if a greater supply were available?

Mr. George: If only hon. Members opposite would listen to what I am saying—

Mr. Steele: We are listening.

Mr. George: Hon. Members opposite do not appear to understand. The fault may be mine. I said that the present consumption was 150,000 tons, leaving 850,000 tons to be sold elsewhere. Some of it may be sold to existing users, but there remains 850,000 tons to be got rid of. We cannot lightly say that it can be exported or that we can get rid of it somewhere. We must speak with authority. It is not good enough simply to say that we can get rid of 850,000 tons. Where would the hon. Member for Hamilton sell 850,000 tons of strip? I want to be convinced on this.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that 850,000 tons could be exported or sent down South. He probably knows that a new strip mill has been built recently in France and another in Germany, and that the export premium is rapidly disappearing. He should also know that the cost of transport to the London area is 92s. 6d. a ton. The steel industry, however, is allowed to make only £3 per ton profit, including depreciation. On my evidence, therefore—I shall be glad to be corrected if I am wrong—that fact is that it would be totally uneconomic, having


regard to all the factors, to build a strip mill at Grangemouth.

Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and others have advanced some of the arguments in favour of the Government making a close inquiry into providing a strip mill for Grangemouth and have advanced its social desirability as well as the economic desirability for Scotland. The hon. Member seems to have gone out of his way to find all the arguments which have been produced by the South Wales steel people long ago. These were all put to us when we went on a deputation to the Prime Minister.
The hon. Member has produced no new argument. It may surprise him that one of the greatest experts on steel in this country took a quite different view of the possibility of disposing of the strip. I wish that the hon. Member had devoted just as much attention to finding reasons why the project might be made to succeed as he has to the contrary. He seems to have decided against it.

Mr. George: The right hon. Gentleman and most of those who have advocated the scheme seem only to have looked for the advantages. If we are pressing the Scottish case, we must get both sides. I heard the advantages from the other side, and I have tried to get the disadvantages and am putting them before the House for consideration.
In fact, I was told by the greatest steel expert in Scotland that Grangemouth is useless for a steel site for any purpose at all. The deep-water channel—

Mr. Steele: Who was saying this?

Mr. George: Let me finish—is on the Fife side and would need one to two miles of jetty, which would be a menace to shipping in times of fog.
We cannot lightly throw aside the question of coal, as did the hon. Member for Hamilton this afternoon, by saying that we can get the coal if the Coal Board will trouble to get it. The fact is that the area of coal under the Forth is not sufficiently proved for us to be able to say that it exists as a workable project or as coking coal.
I asked for an authoritative statement from the Coal Board concerning the

supply of coking coal, hoping that the reply would be favourable. The production director in Edinburgh says:
The Board's mining engineers have considered the possibilities and we are satisfied that if the anticipated future demand of the present users of coking coke in Scotland was increased by the amount of the suggested demand at Grangemouth there would inevitably require to be substantial imports of coking coal from elsewhere to augment Scottish production.
That is the answer concerning coking coal from the N.C.B. in Scotland, stating that there would need to be imports from other areas. This means that in the Board's opinion, Scotland cannot produce the coking coal. It is just as simple as that.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: It is simple all right.

Mr. George: If that is not clear to hon. Members opposite, I cannot make it clearer.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Member has merely said that the production engineer of the Divisional Coal Board in Scotland has told him what he told me: namely, that the Divisional Coal Board has not planned to meet any need in addition to the needs expressed by Colvilles. Did the hon. Member not ask the production director whether the reserves existed in Scotland to be worked and whether the Board could put down another couple of coal pits if it felt there was any need to do so and there would be an outlet for the coking coal when it was produced?

Mr. George: I cannot alter the sense of the letter, no matter how the hon. Member wants to do so. It states that
The Board's mining engineers have considered the possibilities and we are satisfied that … there would inevitably — be substantial imports".
That takes account of the whole position and of the increased demand. There it is.
I know that the vast area underneath the Forth of which the hon. Member for Hamilton spoke has been proved neither as a workable field nor as a deposit of coking coal. Because a coal is coking at one place does not necessarily mean that it is coking coal at the next place. I worked in that area and, in my time there, the coal changed its character from a coking coal to anthracite. There is no guarantee that it remains as coking coal in all parts of the area.
On our examination of the strip mill proposition, I think we should do well for Scotland now, and in the future, if we study our facts accurately and present not simply one side of the case. If we build up the position which has been built up today, leading the people of Scotland to believe that everything is right and ready for the strip mill here, and there is no reason other than stupidity by the Government for not giving it to Scotland, we serve no useful purpose to the country. If the project does not go to Scotland, it will be a shock to Scotland. That is why I am trying to put the other side of the case as fairly as possible.
In both the shipbuilding and steel industries, I. found great indignation at the rising price of coal and I decided to look into the position of our third great basic industry—coal. The steel industry has been studying the future performance of coal mining to see whether there was any chance of stabilising its prices in the years ahead. What we find in the Scottish coal mining industry is that after spending £70 million of capital since nationalisation, Scotland is the only area of Britain which is mining less coal than before nationalisation. The output in 1956 was approximately 1 million tons less than in 1947 and this year it is very little better. Secondly, in the last six years, we have lost £28½ million. In other words, more than the whole of the deficit of the National Coal Board has been lost in Scotland in the last six years. In the last year alone we lost £7·6 million. Counting up the figures I find that it would take an additional 2 million tons of output for the Scottish coal mining industry to break even.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member is a great expert in mining. Will he not admit that he is misleading the House in giving these figures? He knows better than anybody else that most of these millions have been spent on sinking new pits in Scotland, and that one of the biggest, at Glenrothes, is only now just starting to produce, and that many of the old mines are becoming decayed and produce less every year because of natural causes. There may be some point in his argument, but it is exaggerated, and he is exaggerating to such an extent as to mislead the House in stating that £78½ million has been wasted.

Mr. George: I think it is an impertinence of the right hon. Gentleman to say that I am misleading the House when I am quoting figures produced by the Coal Board itself. [An HON. MEMBER: "Capital expenditure."] I am giving the profit and loss, and it has nothing to do with capital expenditure. These are figures from the Coal Board's accounts. I did not manufacture them. Hon. and right hon. Members can look them up for themselves. The coal industry in Scotland lost £28½ million on profit and loss in six years.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has not given way and the right hon. Gentleman may not rise to interrupt if he does not.

Miss Margaret Herbison: But the hon. Gentleman ought to know that he is misleading the House.

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman is not misleading the House. He is quoting figures from the National Coal Board's annual returns.

Miss Herbison: He is putting his own interpretation on them.

Mr. George: In six years £28½ million were lost, and the total loss of the National Coal Board in the rest of Britain in ten years was £23 million.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is at a little sharp practice again, because I did not refer to £28½ million. I accept that figure as part of the balance sheet. I spoke of the £78½ million capital expenditure which, the hon. Gentleman suggested, was not resulting in any increased production, which, he suggested, was money thrown down the drain, whereas, as he knows, it was spent on sinking new pits which are not yet in production.

Mr. George: I did not say anything of the kind. I said that, after spending £70 million in Scotland, output was 1 million tons down in 1956 and it is very little better this year. That is a fact. If I state facts I am misleading nobody. I cited the actual loss over six years—

Mr. T. Fraser: What was it spent on?

Mr. George: —and the deplorable fact, evident from the Board's accounts, that every area in Scotland is in the red—every single area in Scotland. One area, which I am sad to talk about in this connection, an area in which I spent so many years, has lost in the last six years £6½ million and somehow or another last year managed to lose 21s. on every ton it produced. These are facts.
We need to raise output in Scotland by 10 per cent. to break even. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen do not like facts. These are facts. They are worrying the industry of Scotland. Industry in Scotland is looking anxiously to the future and wondering what will happen. Industry in Scotland was told by the National Coal Board in 1948 that if it spent £68 million in Scotland then by 1965 it would have an output of £30 million annually and would employ 77,000 men. Industry was told last year by the Board that the conditions were so difficult and things were going so slowly that it would have to spend £185 million to get not 30 million tons but 26·5 million tons and would require not 77,700 men but 85,500 men. That is the position.
That is the position that is worrying industry and which is worrying the steel and shipbuilding industries. The fact emerges—and this is very serious for the future—that we have been told time and time again that the coal trade of Scotland is being held back by the declining areas of Lanarkshire which are a burden upon the coal mining industry. When one examines the results of Scottish mine working in the last six years one finds that their results have not been the worst since nationalisation. It is the developing areas of Fife, the Lothians and Ayr that show the worst decline compared with 1941.

Mr. Hubbard: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that since nationalisation the working of the coal mines has been almost completely reorganised, and now the best of our young men have to do the job in the mines which ought to have been done years ago when they were privately owned. He must surely take cognisance of that fact. Not only labour but millions of pounds of money have had to be expended upon the mines since nationalisation because of the neglect of the mines when they were privately owned.

Mr. George: I am confining myself to a recitation of the facts, and the facts are as I have stated them. There may be something in what the hon. Member says. He knows the industry very well.
However, it is 10 years since nationalisation, and the public are getting tired and angry at the continual increases in prices and they wonder when their day is coming and when the tide will turn, and when they, who have given the money, will have some return for all the money they have spent and in return for the benefits the miners are getting and have been getting from the people of Scotland in these recent years.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. George: Let me finish. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] People talk about these new pits as though they will be the saviours of the coal mining industry of Scotland. Examining the position I wonder if they will be the saviours of the mining industry or whether the present position of the mining industry in Scotland, in which every area is in the red, is not to be a permanent one. Look at the cost of the new shafts, and the time taken for sinking them. By the time they come into production the burden of cost will be 30s. a ton for depreciation and service of the capital.
In my view these collieries will never pay, if the coal from them is to be sold at reasonable prices, and the steel industry and shipbuilding industry of Scotland have to depend upon the Scottish coal mining industry's giving them coal at reasonable prices. Bearing that in mind the future outlook for them is indeed black. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power here, and I suggest that the time has come when, with every area of the Scottish mining industry in the red, with the appalling losses which have been shown over the last six years, we should have a full-scale inquiry into the Scottish area management. I think hon. and right hon. Members opposite must agree with me about that, because in the Labour Party Report issued this morning it is stated that the nationalised industries should be thoroughly examined once every ten years, and it is ten years since the coal mining industry was nationalised. In view of the facts I have given, I think


the time has come when we should have a full-scale inquiry into the Scottish district.
Shipbuilding is shackled by restrictive practices and the shortage of steel, but we have a chance to increase our exports substantially and so help the trade of Scotland. The steel industry has been hampered by delays in coking coal supplies, but in the future with rising output it can be profitable and prevent imports.
The position of coal, however, I find to be dismal and depressing, and I hope it will be looked into so that it may be restored to a position in which it can help and not hinder our economy.

Mr. Hubbard: The hon. Member should go back to the mines to help.

7.48 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am pleased to catch the eye of the Chair after such a vigorous speech from the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). I have no doubt that the cockles of the heart of every Welshman will have been warmed by that speech.

Mr. Bence: Do not believe it.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member for Pollok is an expert in mining, but he has undermined the Scottish position in the view of the general public at the present time, largely because the technical arguments used by the hon. Member cannot be answered in this context without all the proper information available. Most of the arguments he has proposed could be countered by substantial arguments by men in the industry just as qualified and perhaps even better qualified than he is.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member for Pollok is jaundiced.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate that the hon. Member was not speaking for Pollok but for Colvilles?

Dr. Mabon: I do appreciate that. Indeed, another wicked thought entered my mind.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member for Pollok went to Sir Andrew McCance, and it was Sir Andrew McCance's story he was telling.

Dr. Mabon: I do not wish to be a transit market in exchanges in debates

which do not include me. Apart from the allegations made by two of my hon. Friends regarding the point of view from which the hon. Member for Poliok was speaking, the wicked thought came into my mind that he may have been inspired by the Government to make it clear to us that we were not getting this mill. We were very hopeful when the Minister of Labour made his guarded and wellqualilied statement that in fact no decision had been taken, that we still had a chance.
The hon. Member for Pollok said that, unlike the rest of us who were all so terribly Scottish that we could not see the fairness of the situation, he was presenting a fair case, but he never once referred to the greatest factor in the argument which underlines this whole debate and ought to be one of our principal considerations. It has nothing to do with the mining of coal or of steel, but is the social fact that we ought to have more industrial installations in Scotland so that we can squash our chronic unemployment problem.

Mr. George: I was not speaking for the Government in any shape or form.

Dr. Mabon: I am more prepared to accept that assurance than the other about speaking for Colvilles. I have no wish to get entangled in all the other arguments which the hon. Member has mentioned, although I would have liked to.
I have some acute constituency problems which I must raise. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), who earlier drew the attention of the Minister of Labour to the problem of the regulations governing wet docks. This is a matter which affects many of the men working in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry. I hope that the Minister will look into that. The Minister talked of painting a picture in black and white. He is fond of that metaphor. In this context such a picture is a silhouette which demonstrates the outlines but not the particulars. One of the particulars was successfully blurred in his broad sweep, when he said that there would be 2,000 or 2,500 people rendered redundant between now and 1959. That is seemingly not very much. It is two and a half years in which to absorb 2,500 people.
But in my constituency 900 of these people have been rendered unemployed within the last two months. An hon. Member opposite referred to the Royal Ordnance factories and criticised an hon. Member for saying, on the one hand, that we should run down the defence programme and, on the other, that we were not willing to accept the consequences of it. That is a superficial judgment. If there is to be any run-down of industry for any good reason there should be Government action taken at once to offset the social consequences.
Then there is the argument about the steel mills. We believe that we should act in furnishing the raw material. Socially we need it.
In Scotland, we have had double the unemployment of England ever since the policy of full employment was brought into being during the middle of the war. Before the war, we always had a substantially high volume of unemployment. It is not unfair to say that my constituency is the industrial barometer of Scotland. At the moment, it stands at 6 per cent., and it is still rising. In October, in Greenock, there will be 150 of the dock force of 250 unemployed because of the introduction of the bulk handling of sugar cargoes. The dockers welcome this advance in mechanisation. We are not Luddites in Greenock. But, in return, is it unreasonable that we should ask for more trade for the Port of Greenock?
This winter we could be reaching 7 or 8 per cent. unemployed. I am not content to listen to debating speeches from hon. Members opposite claiming that in Scotland as a whole we are worried about only one or two patches—not when I am a patch, anyway. If hon. Members themselves were involved, they would not look so complacently on the things that we are hearing about in Scotland.
Last year, in a similar debate, the argument on the Government side was, "All is well; we are doing fine", and on this side, "We are just holding our own and we should be expanding." This year things have changed. This year the Government side is saying, "All is well, we are holding our own", while this side is saying, "Things are black; we are going back". All hon. Members must concede that there has been a change in industry in Scotland during the last year. This not

only applies to Greenock but elsewhere, including Dundee.
I do not consider that the decision concerning jute is an isolated case. I want to make two points which are worth thinking about in relation to the European Common Market. The interesting thing is that when the announcement was made yesterday the President of the Board of Trade, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) said, did not know the extent of the unemployment consequent on his decision. In other words, he calls upon the jute employers and the jute workers of Dundee and says, "This is the decision. We cut by 10 per cent." Yet he does not know what the consequential figure of unemployment will be. Does that mean that the President of the Board of Trade can take decisions without knowing what the consequences are in terms of unemployment. The Minister of Supply does that, but there is no reason why the President of the Board of Trade should do it.
The Minister of Supply can take decisions and render substantial redundancy in different areas in the country without steps being taken to find alternative employment. Although the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that he will wave the pledges which the Government have given in their faces should they reduce the remaining 30 per cent. still further, the fact is that the Government have forgotten their pledges to industry even by this cut of 10 per cent.
This decision has only one good thing to commend it, and that is that every industry in Scotland will have to look more closely at the economic consequences of the European Common Market. We must know what will be the consequences of the European Common Market in Scotland, because we are the most vulnerable part of the economy of the United Kingdom. If we have to enter the European Common Market, very good reasons should be given, and alternative plans made for those workers who have to sacrifice their jobs in order to make the scheme work.
The anxiety of Scotland in relation to its strip mill to the problems of my constituency and those of any other Scottish constituency, and the consequences of the European Common Market, all end up on the shoulders of one unfortunate man, the Secretary of State for Scotland. The


Secretary of State for Scotland is in the Cabinet to fight on every one of these issues for a big constituency interest, his constituency of Scotland. No matter how much anguish there may have been in his heart, I cannot help feeling that he could have successfully resisted the Dundee decision if he had put up a stronger fight. If he were willing to fight, even to the extent of dropping his extremely good manners and becoming a little rude and even boisterous in the Cabinet, I believe that Scotland would get the strip mill.
The right hon. Gentleman's constituency adjoins mine, and I do not have to remind him of a problem which concerns many of our local people. Having made a number of criticisms, I do not propose to sit down without having made some constructive comments. The Minister of Labour told me in answer to a Question on 3rd July that it was hoped that new projects, not yet fully manned, would in due course provide about 700 additional jobs in my area, but I understand that that is simply the natural occurrence of vacancies and does not relate to any other earnest effort by the Minister to find alternative employment.
I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour—if that is possible in one speech—to the Report on Development Areas from the Select Committee on Estimates. (1956–57.) The Committee recommended that:
… the building of extensions to existing factories should be regarded by the Board of Trade, under present conditions, as their principal form of building for letting.
The Board of Trade answer is that it has been and remains the policy of the Board of Trade to build new factories only in those parts of the Development Areas where the unemployment position is likely to become serious.
Does Greenock qualify? Does 6 per cent. unemployment qualify? If not, to what extent must unemployment in Greenock rise before we are entitled to this sort of help? Without mentioning names, I know that for nearly six months there have been intensive negotiations to try to get an extension of an existing factory in Greenock. I know from the management, in whom I have every confidence, that within two years the factory could provide 1,000 new jobs for

people in my constituency. That would be a substantial contribution towards the solution of our unemployment difficulties. Now is the time for the Board of Trade to come to some satisfactory arrangement for this factory to have an extension.
The case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was excellent. He pointed out that, while Scotland suffered the consequences of inflation, it had never enjoyed the advantages. We have never had over-full employment and never had high capital investment. That is true of Greenock. We have always had a chronic unemployment rate running above Lord Beveridge's 3 per cent. classic minimum. Our new industries have been welcomed in the town, but by no means are they the complete answer to the diversification of industry which we need.
In the main industries of shipbuilding and engineering we have looked to the Government to help to construct the proposed new graving dock, but since the Government have washed their hands of us financially, we have had to look to private enterprise and see whether it will be sufficiently enterprising to give Greenock the industrial component which would be to Greenock what a steel mill would be to the rest of Scotland.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: It is with some trepidation that I intervene in a Scottish debate, but there is one aspect of the jute industry in Dundee which has not yet been mentioned. I am more fearful about intervening because the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, "Hit one bit of Scotland and you hit the lot."' I have found myself in disagreement with those who have spoken about the Dundee jute industry and my intervention is only so that the case of the customers of that industry and of the manufacturers who use hessian in their products shall not go by default.
There was much in the argument of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade when in announcing his decision yesterday he pointed out that the very high mark-up of hessian goods was already having a harmful effect on the Dundee industry itself by defeating its own ends. If it is not already happening, that industry must


soon be losing to the substitutes. It is not merely a case of paper bags in place of sacks. Many other things in which hessian is used as part of the manufactured article are being affected.
An example is the seats of motor cars. Upholsterers who make motor car seats are losing to those using foam rubber and the same sort of thing must be happening in a number of products because of the high price of the hessian element in the upholstery. I am certain that the high mark-up of hessian goods is harmful to other United Kingdom industries. An example was given in a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) yesterday when he referred to the closing down of a carpet factory in his constituency. I have figures relating to the loss of exports through the high price of hessian.

Mr. William Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the cost of jute has led to the closing down of a carpet factory? Can he say what element of the cost of a finished carpet the cost of jute is?

Mr. Page: I was merely quoting a supplementary question put yesterday. I went on to say that I have figures relating to exports being lost. Those figures relate to an industry in the neighbourhood of my constituency.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), but the debate is about industry and employment in Scotland.

Mr. Page: Previous speeches have dealt with the effects of yesterday's announcement on the jute industry in Dundee and with whether there was good reason for the announcement. I was endeavouring to show why the mark-up of the price of hessian goods should be reduced and I was saying that the high price of hessian is having a harmful and damaging effect on other industries in Great Britain. To that extent I felt that I was in order in putting the point.
The firm from which I obtained certain figures manufactures motor car seats in particular, 60 per cent. of which are for export. That firm could have obtained, if permitted to import it, Calcutta hessian at a price 60 per cent. less than the price of the hessian from Dundee.

In that case there was a 60 per cent. mark-up. At that time my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informed me that the average mark-up was 36 per cent. As the announcement said yesterday, the mark-up is now 40 per cent., reduced to 30 per cent., but on the figures that I have given this manufacturing firm had to put hessian into goods to be exported at 60 per cent. above world prices.
That seems to me to be extremely damaging to our export trade and also to our home trade. and to be inflationary in the extreme. This price, which is fixed by the mark-up, is not a Government-controlled price. The Government do not control the price; they merely control the sources from which the hessian can be obtained. Knowing that the customers cannot go elsewhere, Jute Industries Limited of Dundee can fix what price it chooses. A better example of a restrictive practice could scarcely be imagined.
Apart from the question of price, there is the question of delivery dates which, for a long time, have been very much longer than hessian obtained from abroad, and certainly hessian from Belgium. Yesterday's announcement was made none too soon. The Government have given the industry a long time—ever since the war—to put its house in order. In February, 1954, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, it was said that appropriate measures were being worked out with the industry. Yet the Jute Control and the high mark-up of hessian goods has continued, with all the trimmings of State control—the Jute Control's warehousing, storage, delivery cost, merchants' commission, and so on—in addition to the mark-up for the Dundee prices. Some time ago my right hon. Friend the President informed me that those extra costs of the Jute Control took account of only 1½ per cent. of the price of hessian. I cannot think that the figure was as low as that, but, even if it were, that 1½ per cent. is unnecessary.
There is the question not only of the Calcutta hessian, but of the Belgian hessian, and this is very much a point at issue here. The Jute Control is the sole importer of Calcutta hessian, but licences for imports of Belgian hessian are freely granted. I know that they do not cover a very wide market, because it is only on non-standards that the Belgian imports


are concerned, but even with a 20 per cent. duty on Belgian imports of hessian it can be purchased here at 5 per cent. less than the Dundee price.
Dundee and Belgium are buying their raw material from exactly the same sources and at exactly the same world prices—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member again, but speeches in this debate must be related to Scottish trade and industry.

Mr. Page: With respect, Sir William, I think that my remarks were directly to the point, because I was just about to ask why the Dundee jute industry produces hessian at a cost of 25 per cent. more than that of Belgian hessian imported into the country, when both Belgium and Dundee are paying the same for their raw materials.

Mr. Hubbard: What about wages?

Mr. Page: Cannot a greater efficiency be shown by the Dundee jute industry to bring the price down, and will not this reduction in the mark-up from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. force that greater efficiency without necessarily causing any greater unemployment?

Mr. Hubbard: Is the hon. Member prepared to take into account a fact which is very germane in regard to Scotland, namely, that prior to the war the jute industry was the poorest paid industry in this country and that those who were engaged in it were mainly women who were forced to work in it because of conditions at the time? Since then the jute industry has become a very well-paid industry, which looks after its workers. The subject matter of the hon. Member's speech is not germane; it seems to me to be more on behalf of an industry than on behalf of Scotland. What is germane to this debate is what is to happen in the meantime to the people who have been made unemployed in Dundee? That is a more relevant consideration. Also, what are the conditions in which they will be unemployed?

Mr. Page: I was only wondering to what extent the industry could become more efficient in bringing down the price without causing unemployment. What has been said about unemployment in

this industry must be exaggerated; the price can be brought down to the 30 per cent. mark-up without causing substantial unemployment, and where unemployment may be caused, as the announcement yesterday said:
The Government, for their part, will step up their efforts to get new industries to go to the Dundee area.
There is a valid criticism in that that might have been done a long time ago, for the discussions about the jute industry have been going on for a very long time. I am puzzled why these steps have not been taken before, although the announcement goes on to say:
Over the past ten years, the new factories which have been started in the area have provided nearly 6,000 new jobs …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 1155.]
Something has been done, but it is obvious that more ought to be done. While there was this high mark-up of 40 per cent.—in effect it was a mark-up of 60 per cent.—the whole system was inflationary; we were selling goods which contained hessian—linoleum, carpets, car seats, and so on—at inflationary prices.
I am glad that the Government have taken some action to stop the damaging effect upon our export trade; the damaging effect upon other United Kingdom industries and, I believe, the eventual damaging effect upon Dundee itself. I wish that more new factories could have been developed in that area so that the reduction in the mark-up could have been not just from 40 per cent. down to 30 per cent., but a lot more, in order to stop the damage to our export trade.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Before the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) made his speech and before the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) this debate had been to me one of the most interesting to which I have listened since I became a Member of this House. It seemed to me that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies were getting together to criticise the Government in Whitehall rather than the Scottish Department in Edinburgh regarding what is happening in Scotland.
I was shocked by what was said by the hon. Member for Pollok. Generally


on industrial matters regarding both organisation and the commercial side, and on the technical side, he and I have much in common. But some of the figures which he quoted today were, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), quite misleading and out of context when applied to the general European situation. After all, when one speaks of major industries like coal and steel, especially coal which is dependent upon the geographical location and the depth and quality of seams, it is unfair to make comparisons within such a small compass as the United Kingdom. Had the hon. Member for Pollok been fair, he would have related his figures regarding both coal and steel to the whole European area.
I was in Luxembourg a few weeks ago where I met the heads of the Belgian, German and French coal industries. They complained that, owing to the immense capital development in Great Britain and the circumstances of our State-controlled coal industry, British best quality coal was much cheaper than European coal, which resulted in British steel being much cheaper than European steel. In fact they gave figures which showed that in, I believe, the last two years European fuel and steel prices had risen by 13 per cent., whereas British prices had risen by only 6½ per cent. The figures do not really matter; it is the fact which counts. Fuel, transport and steel prices are rising faster in Europe, and have been over the last three years, than those for British coal and steel. These are facts which the hon. Member for Pollok should have quoted if he was honest.
We know that in one section of a coal field costs may be higher than in another. That is due to geographical and geological factors, the structure of coal seams makes it inevitable. I have been down mines in South Wales where the seams were 10 to 15 feet and where it was as easy to get out the coal as it would have been from a coal shed. But in others, where the seams were only 18 inches, it was a difficult and costly matter to win the coal.
The hon. Gentleman used another argument about strip steel production in Scotland and the lack of coking coal. He had been to Colvilles' to get evidence, but he had not been to the Coal Board. He had been to the shipbuilding industry and also

taken the trouble to ascertain that on the Continent of Europe giant integrated strip mills were being put down. I propose to show the hon. Gentleman a memorandum which I have from the European Coal and Steel Community which states that coking coal and solid fuel is decreasing in quantity on the Continent at a faster rate than in Britain. It will not be many years before steel manufacturers on the Continent of Europe will be forced to find a way of converting iron ore to pig iron without the use of coal at all.
That is being done in the laboratory. Research is being carried out to produce good quality basic Bessemer steel, known on the Continent as Thomas steel, and it is claimed that it is possible to produce Thomas steel of a quality equal to that of open hearth steel. When that happens the question of providing coking coal will not enter into the matter at all. The provision of coking coal may be an important factor for the next four or five years, but we must think further ahead than that. As I have said many times before in this House, I am convinced that the time is fast approaching when the cost of putting down integrated production plant of any kind will be so costly that plant will be put down and technically improved within itself, rather than augmented by additional plant. That is why at the present time in the south of England the engineer and producer are enabled to increase production without increasing factory space by means of internal technological development.
There is but a short time in which to make the decision which the Government must make to direct industry to those areas of the country which can carry a heavier population. The traffic problem on our roads is getting worse. London is becoming almost deadlocked all because of the fact that surrounding it are hundreds of little factories, and some big ones, with a high rate of output into which are fed large quantities of raw materials. If we wish to open up our services we must spread our industries. Surely that is obvious. In my view that is a good reason why, when a major enterprise such as a strip mill is being contemplated the best place to put it would be in Scotland.
For three or four years it must be necessary to import coking coal from


Durham, but I am convinced that eventually the scientists and steel men will give us steel which has been produced without the use of coking coal. That will result in economy in the use of solid fuel and economy in production costs. Therefore, I do not consider that the argument about the lack of coking coal is valid.
The main thing I want to speak about is the Royal Ordnance factory, Dalmuir. I do not want to go through all the arguments which I put before the Minister. My own trade union is deeply concerned about this factory. The problem of re-employment of the labour that is to be displaced is not a very simple one. It is not easy to think of re-employing them at Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox. Many of the men are established. The Minister of Labour is not here at the moment, but I hope that he will take note of what I have to say, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring my suggestions to his notice.
These men have been long established and have enjoyed conditions leading to superannuation. When we think of the men being re-employed by large companies we must remember that most of these large firms have to comply with the general standards of employment insisted upon by their employers' federation. I could cite cases of companies in which I have been employed where the employers, although quite willing to concede improvements in wages and conditions to groups of workers, have said, "We cannot do this because the employers' federation would come down on us like a ton of bricks."
I mention this in connection with the remarks of the hon. Member for Pollok about restrictive practices. I can assure him that there is a lot more restrictive practice on the part of employers than of workers in the protection of their interests. If these men went to Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox, would their working conditions be comparable with those which they enjoyed under the Ministry of Supply?
Worse still, suppose that the men were not wanted by Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox. I suppose the Ministry would then offer them alternative employment in other institutions of the Ministry of Supply. They would be offered a transfer from Dalmuir to, say, Woolwich Arsenal,

Leeds, Cardiff—if the ordnance factory there is to be maintained—or to some other place down south, according to their class of skill. If they refused, there would be superannuation and all the privileges they have acquired by service in that Ministry's employment.
I have no doubt that all these matters will be discussed, and that the men affected in this Royal Ordnance factory will be taken care of. They are all members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, of which I am a member, and they all enjoy its benefits. I hope that the Minister of Labour will see to it that the men who are liable to be displaced or transferred to Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox are looked after, and if they are not transferred are given ample compensation.
They should not be taken advantage of by being offered transfers to places where there are no houses, or where rents are high, or which are out of their own environment, quite away from where their families may be attending high schools or grammar schools and so disturb their education. These are very human matters and cannot be ignored. I should feel very hurt if a man who was offered a transfer replied, "I have three children, aged 12, 15 and 17. One has just passed his 11-plus and is going to a secondary school in Scotland and we hope that the other will take his Higher and go to university. I would suffer an awful lot rather than have my family shifted to Cardiff, London or anywhere else. I would rather be unemployed and see my children have continuity of education than take them to strange schools where, perhaps, there is a different curriculum and a different form which would confuse them and perhaps frustrate their whole future." Some of us had experience of this in the days of unemployment between the wars.
I wish to make two points on the question of encouraging industry to come to Scotland. We have heard much complaint from hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House about the credit squeeze. If we are to avoid inflation in the country as a whole we have to use several methods or one of several methods of controlling the expansion of credit. From time to time the Government insist that they are doing everything in their power to encourage industry to go to


Scotland and to leave built-up areas. We shall want industry to leave such centres as Glasgow and to go to Cumbernauld. In expanding industry one has to use money from the banks or insurance companies. The keen businessman never uses his own money. He forms a limited company so that, if anything goes wrong he is all right and is not liable for the loss.
It is the use of money which expands industry. If the Government are really anxious and keen to develop more industry in Scotland, in Wales and on the North-East Coast, to draw it from the Metropolis and the Home Counties where there is a tremendous jam of human beings and traffic, why do they not concede to those who will take industry to Scotland and to the remoter areas a financial incentive in the form of lower credit terms? I do not accept the answer of differentiation on that because it is being done by the Coal and Steel Community of Europe. That Community is having factories and steelworks sited in Europe and developed through the High Authority.
Through the banking systems of Europe it guarantees special credit terms and loans on low-interest rates to enable these things to be done. If a private company wants to build an industry just where it likes it is told, "You must raise the money yourself." We asked if such a company was able to get the money in that way. The answer was "No," because when the banks were approached the private company would be asked why the High Authority was not supporting the development. The Government talk about being keen to use monetary mechanism to control inflation, but the High Authority in Europe is using it to direct industry to places where it is wanted. I would support a Government which did the same thing here. Personally, of course, I should direct industry, because if we do not do that we must direct labour. If we do not move industry to where the labour is, we must move labour to where somebody has placed the industry. It is therefore far better to direct industry.
We are asking the Government to direct the strip mill to Scotland. I ask the Iron and Steel Board to put this industry in Scotland. The Government will obviously

back the financing and the development of the steel industry, because ultimately the Government are responsible. In their position I should give special credit terms for the construction of this strip mill. I believe that it is only by that technique that we can bring about the necessary distribution of industry in Scotland.
In my opinion, the Government are not paying enough attention even to their own Reports. I do not want to see the heavy industries decay, and I do not think they will; I think that Scottish shipbuilding will always hold its own. It is holding its own today as well as it has ever done, for although the percentage of tonnage launched is lower, the Scottish yards are building the best highly specialised and equipped ships in the world, including merchant vessels, tankers and ships for mixed cargoes. Although the tonnage is smaller than it was, the values are higher.
I would draw attention to paragraph 108 on page 20 of the White Paper, "Industry and Employment in Scotland and Scottish Roads Report, 1956". It is headed "Fabricated Aluminium", and it reads:
The production of sheet and strip, wire, foil and aluminium alloy ingot remained steady but the output of castings declined slightly.
Everyone in Scotland knows that the iron castings and mouldings industry is on the decline, as it is everywhere in the world, because it is being replaced by steel pressings, which are used a great deal in conjunction with alloy castings of aluminium and zinc. I know of firms in Scotland which are buying alloy castings of aluminium and zinc from the South and are also buying strip steel. If this strip steel mill were built in Scotland, I am certain that there would be an expansion of the light engineering industries, which are consumers of both narrow and wide strip, as well as an expansion of the aluminium die-casting industry, because these two go together. Anyone who buys a modern refrigerator will find any number of aluminium castings in it, in conjunction with pressed steel.
When the Government are reconsidering this strip mill I ask them to appreciate that we have the problem of an industry in Scotland—the iron moulding industry—which is dying as well as that of an industry—the aluminium alloy


casting industry—which has just been born, but which is now being killed because it has to bring strip steel from the South. One industry is dying and the other is being killed. I hope that when the Secretary of State discusses this matter with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, he will impress upon them that action must be taken quickly. If this strip mill is placed in Wales and not in Scotland, we shall have lost what I believe to be the last opportunity in our lifetime for a major surge forward in Scotland.

Mr. George Thomas: We want it in Wales.

Mr. Bence: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has said that. In Wales they have the whole of the tin plate industry and some of our biggest strip mills. They have the wonderful plants at Ebbw Vale and Margam. I have not lost my loyalty to Wales, but I am thinking of the United Kingdom as a whole, and I believe that too many people live in the South. I live within half an hour's journey of Loch Lomond. There is nothing I should like better—and I think my hon. Friend will agree with me—than to bring 1½ million people from the South and employ them in Scotland, increasing the population there to seven million. I am sure that the industrial workers would approve, because in a very short time the workers in that area can reach beautiful countryside. It would do the population good and would lower the incidence of disease if we could thin out the population in the South and take more people to work in Scotland.

8.45 p.m.

Sir James Henderson-Stewart: I am in the difficulty in which many speakers find themselves at this time of night, in that much of what I had intended to say has already been said. This afternoon I had other duties, as had other hon. Members, and have not been able to attend the debate.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has, as usual, raised a great many topics, and has led us off on many attractive paths, and has baffled us—bamboozled us a little—by a spate of that technical discussion of which he is such a master. I do not pretend to

understand the techniques of the steel industry as he described them, but if I am asked what I think about this vital problem of steel in Scotland I will frankly tell the House.
I accompanied the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and others to meet the Prime Minister a week or two ago. I there did my part in impressing upon the Prime Minister how important it was that the fullest consideration should be given to the Scotland schemes. I still think that, but I think that, in the end, the other members of the deputation came to the same conclusion as I did, that the Prime Minister's response was the right one, namely, that this matter needs a great deal of thought, and cannot be settled at once.
There are so many considerations. While I still believe that it would be a good thing if this project came to Scotland, I say quite frankly to my Scottish colleagues that the first thing in my mind is that we do not damage the prospects of the great Colville enterprise that is now in progress. I issue that caveat, that warning, as an indication of my own slight anxiety, but, provided that I can be assured about that, I am 100 per cent. in favour of this great project.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East raised another very important point. I entirely share his anxiety about the closing of the Royal Ordnance factory, Dalmuir. I do not pretend to know anything of the technical problems relating to the men there. I recognise that those men are industrial civil servants and that if they lose that occupation and are not moved to another Royal Ordnance factory, they will lose certain things. That, of course, is a very serious matter for them.
I do not know the answer to the hon. Member's question—perhaps the Government will tell us—but I would assume that his union, which is highly qualified to deal with the matter, and the Civil Service authorities between them will come to a reasonable understanding. It would be against all the traditions of this House and of the Civil Service authorities if something underhand were done. Therefore, my hope and assumption is that a reasonable arrangement will be made. I see that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry


of Supply is present and, knowing him, I am quite sure that he would not countenance any action in regard to these men that was not just and fair.
On the general position, I must say that I do not regret the transfer of these factories from ordnance to civilian work. After all, are not all of us in the House saying from time to time that we are spending too much on armaments, and would like to see that money directed into another channel? That is the common view. I, therefore, do not object to Royal Ordnance factories being closed. The fact that we are to have the great firm of Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox, with its tremendous reputation, coming to our country and offering prospects of steady employment I regard as very good for Scotland.

Mr. Steele: It is there already.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I knows; I should have said "expanding." That is very good for Scotland. As we all know, Royal Ordnance factories are subject to changes and shifts of military opinion, but here is something which is steady. Therefore, in the long run, this is not bad but good for Scotland.
I have some concern with the jute industry. There are two jute establishments in my constituency, and I, therefore, have that direct interest. There is not time now and it is not for me here to discuss the matter in great detail, but I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, although there may be a case for reducing the mark-up fom 30 to 40 per cent.—I do not intend to argue for or against that—I am quite sure from information which has reached me within the last twenty-four hours that if the Government do not stand at 30 per cent. we are in for real trouble. The jute establishments in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) are directly affected by this change.
I do not want to use too strong language, but I warn my right hon. Friend that, so far as I am able to judge, if we begin to fall away from 30 per cent. and make it 25 or 20 per cent., there will be real trouble in the east of Scotland. I do not want that. I am all for further diversification. I have sought that all

my life in the House, and I advanced it as a policy when I was at the Scottish Office. It is a difficult matter, but there clearly is a case in Dundee and generally round about in the Angus towns and, it may well be, in Tayport that assistance will be needed. I should very much like to see another factory or two established in Tayport, but that cannot be done because it is not a Development Area. However, it may be that, because of this peculiar situation, the Development Area of Dundee may have slightly to be extended to areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus.
As my colleagues from Scotland know, I do not take the view that all the problems of Scotland in diversification will be solved by creating new Development Areas. I do not agree with that as a general policy. I do not think it is sound, though I shall not develop my argument now. I have already done so, and I have an alternative, as hon. Gentlemen know, which I expounded during our debate on the Housing and Town Development Bill.
I recognise that we have our difficult spots and our problems. We may go through quite troublesome times here and there. But it is not a general difficulty; it is a patchy difficulty. It is like education, where we have our good and bad spots. As I wrote the other day, in the part of Fife represented by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) there is great difficulty in getting teachers, whereas in St. Andrews there is no difficulty in getting teachers. It is very patchy. So it is with industry. We have our very prosperous areas and we have the darker spots.
My clear impression, and I have followed this with very close attention for the last five years, is that the Scottish economy today is a bright economy. We have a prosperous outlook, and it is wrong and quite improper for Members of Parliament in this House to present to the world a picture that all is bad and black north of the Border. It is not true, and it does us all a great deal of harm, particularly those whom we are representing.

Mr. Steele: Who said it?

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: We want to say to England and to the world at large that ours is a progressive, energetic


economy, because these American firms are still coming in. If we all go about making these groaning speeches, we shall frighten them all off, and that is not helping Scotland, but doing Scotland harm.

Mr. Hubbard: Who made these speeches?

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I regret myself that some of us today have been far too pessimistic, and while I do not want in any way to disguise the fact that we have our real difficulties, I think that on the whole we are doing very well and that the prospects for the future are bright.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawsonrose—

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friends are aware about the arrangements for the timing of the last two speeches. If they had intended to speak for a few minutes and then sit down, I must apologise, but it seems perhaps wiser to rise a minute or two before the time rather than be delayed for perhaps considerably longer.

Mr. William Hannan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) started by indicating that the arrangements for closing this debate were known to hon. Members but that if anyone had indicated that he wanted to speak he would have kept his seat. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was on his feet but did not happen to catch your eye. Can I intercede with you and ask if some extenuation could not be given to him?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am afraid not. In my judgment, there was not sufficient time for another speech to be made before calling the two speakers from the Front Benches.

Mr. MacPherson: I am glad to find, in spite of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) being left out, that my judgment coincides with yours, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was very dubious about it myself, and it is a little

difficult to be sure about matters like this.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) ran into the trouble which, I think, he deserved in his last remarks. He was not very enthusiastic in his praise of the Government, but then not very many of the people who have spoken from the other side of the House tonight have been very enthusiastic in praise of the Government. He described the economy as being patchy and ran down the people who talked about it all being black, when, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, there seemed to be some doubt as to who were the people who had talked about it all being black. The hon. Gentleman's own description of the economy as being very attractive, bright and successful is not borne out by an examination of what is said officially in the documents published by the Government which his own side of the House sustains.
We have been discouraged today from making comparisons, but it seems to me that comparisons are very much in order tonight and I propose to make one or two myself. One of the earlier speakers, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison), referred to a very interesting article in The Observer last week-end. The whole point of that article was to compare developments in Scotland today with the situation in the 1930s. That sort of comparison of one period with another is extremely useful, but, in fact, there is a good deal more that can be done than that.
We are in a very different sort of situation from that in the thirties, but it is perfectly valid also to compare the economy of Scotland today with the whole of the United Kingdom economy. If the hon. Gentleman retains the doubts which he earlier expressed about the possibility of considering the economy of Scotland as a whole, I think it was he himself who referred at one time in his speech to Professor Cairncross, If the hon. Member looks up the little book edited by Professor Cairncross, he will find a fairly clear set of arguments adduced in favour of considering that Scotland has an independent economy with—I remember this one of his important phrases—a momentum of her own. It is that momentum which seems to us today, under the present Government, to be slowing down a good deal.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) referred to the figures of the development of the economy of the United Kingdom and of Scotland. I should like to take the main figures and to put them rather more emphatically to the House than the hon. Member did. The index of industrial production, as given by the Government's own publications, for the year 1956—the last completed year—stands for Scotland at an improvement of 27 per cent. over the basic figure of the year 1948. Taken by itself, that is not a bad improvement, but the figure for the whole of the United Kingdom economy is an improvement of 36 per cent. There is, therefore, a considerable difference between the one economy and the other. It is true that in the previous year the difference was even greater. In 1955, the figures were 25 per cent. and 37 per cent.
As the Minister of Labour and National Service pointed out, these figures are themselves the product of a slowing down of expansion. I always like the phrases that Government speakers choose to describe some of the unpleasant things they do. As a description of the same operation, the right hon. Gentleman used the rather pleasant and certainly short and unobtrusive word "check." He said there had been a check in the economy.

Sir J. Duncan: Perhaps the hon. Member would be fair enough to point out that the black spot in that figure, taking 1948 at 100, was mining and quarrying, which stood at 93, whereas building and contracting was 127 and manufacturing industry 131.

Mr. MacPherson: I do not quite follow the point of that intervention. The year 1948 is taken as the base for both the Scottish and the United Kingdom figures. Furthermore, the main umbrella figure covering all the rest is later broken down in the Scottish Digest of Statistics, as the hon. Member for South Angus has pointed out, into one or two other figures, to some of which I propose to refer.

Sir J. Duncan: It is the miners who have let us down.

Mr. MacPherson: I am afraid it is not. If the hon. Member will wait for some

of the figures which I shall quote, he will probably revise that point of view.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It is the Government who have let us down.

Mr. MacPherson: My hon. Friend's intervention is very much to the point.
The figures in both the United Kingdom economy and the Scottish economy for the present year are the product of what the right hon. Gentleman described as a check. They are the product of the deliberate policy, instituted by the Government for their own purposes and ends, which do not include, in a declared sense at least, the end of deliberately slowing down production, but among whose various results is certainly that effect. We are in an economy which is not going ahead as it should do, either in the United Kingdom or in Scotland, but in Scotland it is going ahead a good deal less than in England.
This is the situation that we found in the 'thirties. In those days, we had a period of depression and we found that Scotland was getting the worst of it. Now, we have a period of full employment, of activity and expansion, and Scotland still seems to be getting the worst of it in this kind of period as well. The right hon. Gentleman told us that Scotland's anxieties were not justified because Scotland depended largely on heavy industry, and heavy industry was not the first to be hit in the present—I am not quite sure what phrase he used, speaking as generally as this—the present "check," let us say.
It is quite true that this present halt in the expansion of the United Kingdom economy and of the Scottish economy is not due to the kind of causes which used to hit our heavy industries in the old days of cyclical depression. It is due specifically to Government policy. Therefore, one would not expect the same sort of effects to appear as appeared then. We have, therefore, what has been described many times in this House and also in Scotland, a "lagging" economy. It is lagging behind the economy of the United Kingdom.
The comparison is between the Scottish economy and the United Kingdom as a whole, and it is extremely interesting to find out how hon. Gentlemen opposite


and, more particuarly, right hon. Gentlemen opposite react to that comparison. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr J. Stuart), in the debate corresponding to this a year ago, said:
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) repeated more than once that Scotland was lagging behind.
He went on to say:
There is certainly a difference of outlook in viewing these matters."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 26th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 753.]
There is a difference of outlook, there is no great doubt about that, a difference depending, as the right hon. Gentleman observed then, on which side of the House one sits.
In the same debate the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser), who had been developing this scheme, said:
We cannot have a complete equality as to what is happening to production or building in every section of the United Kingdom; it will vary. On occasions, one will go faster than another."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 676.]
That is a depth of metaphysical and philosophical comment we have not had in the debate today.
We are bound to comment on that, and on the emphasis the right hon. Gentleman put on the use of the word "comparatively" and the adjective "comparative". He described my hon. Friend as continuing to pursue "his comparative path" with the suggestion, certainly in his tone, and also, I think, in the very words he used, that one does not do such a thing. "Comparisons are odious". They can be odious. It all depends what is the substance of them.
When we begin comparing the Scottish economy today with the United Kingdom economy—and I am looking at this development over the last few years—one finds oneself comparing the period of a few years after the war with the period of the few years since 1951, and it is apt to lead one on to the very dangerous ground of comparing the doings of one Government with those of another—a very odious thing if one happens to be on the wrong side of the comparison.
Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, the comparison will be made, if only for this reason, that the majority, not

only of the voters but even of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends on the back benches, are unable to contemplate figures and achievements in a vacuum. We all need some sort of handrail to act as a guide. We all need something to measure figures against, and we like to measure the figures of Scotland against the figures for the United Kingdom, and even if the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are slow to make the comparison, I can assure him that this is a thing which the people of this country pick up quite clearly and easily, and we on this side will help them to pick up as much as we can.
I do not want to continue with this theme, but I would add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said and to Professor Cairncross's book and its introduction, which was written in 1954, that Scotland's economy over the last years show signs of lagging behind. I shall not quote the article in the Observer, but it compares Scotland with Wales. There is not the same sense of future in Scotland. Scotland has a feeling of being behind and without. It lags behind in employment, housing, health and a number of things like that.
This a serious question. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for Scotland has got to apply himself to it. If he does not do so tonight, he and his hon. Friends will have to apply themselves to it within the next few years. This is not just a question being asked from this side of the House, it is a question being asked in the country. The charge is that, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends Scotland is falling behind and that it is no use the Government just turning their faces to the wall and muttering whatever phrases are appropriate for a Government to mutter on its deathbed. They will have to stand up and face this at some time.
I now turn to one or two particular instances of the difficulty in which we find ourselves. The world just now is in a period in which the demand for goods from the industrial countries looks like going through a very great boom. The demand for the kind of goods which will help under-developed economies to go ahead is very great, and it looks, so far as one can judge, like lasting for a very long time.
Scotland is still very heavily committed to heavy industry and to the production of capital goods. Scotland, in point of fact, is in a position in which, if its affairs are properly managed, its economy in the next decade or two could be extremely successful and prosperous. But when we try to find out whether heavy industry, the traditional kind of industry of Scotland, is producing enough, we get the same shock when looking at the figures as when we look at the total figures for the whole economy.
In the Digest of Scottish Statistics we find that in 1956 engineering, shipbuilding and electrical goods showed a 41 per cent. improvement over 1948. The figure for the United Kingdom is 50 per cent. against our 41 per cent. In the same way, when we look at the manufacturing industries in general, we find that the Scottish figure is still below the British figure. The general figure for the manufacturing industries is 31 per cent. improvement for Scotland and 40 per cent. improvement for the whole of the United Kingdom. In the face of these figures, it was rather surprising that when the Minister of Labour came to list his bright spots on Scottish economy—everyone on the other side seems to have agreed that Scottish economy is at least spotted and the hon. Member for Fife, East talked about dark spots—he could not find any; and his bright spots were rather odd ones.
First, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned shipbuilding. He said that it was at a high level, and that new orders were high. When we look again at the figures given in the Digest of Statistics, we find something like this: Merchant ships laid down in Scotland totalled £500,000 in 1954, moved down to £426,000 in 1955, and picked up again in 1956 to £509,000. When we looked at the orders for overseas owners, the export value of the shipping, we find that it is steadily moving down. In 1954, it was 201,000 gross tons, in 1955, 168,000 gross tons and, in 1956, 131,000 gross tons. The figures for those under construction showed a steady decline—I will not read out these figures—from 1952 right down to 1956. It is difficult to see in that situation how the shipbuilding industry, which the right hon. Gentleman considers to be one of the

bright spots of Scotland, is really meeting the considerable under-demand which undoubtedly exists and which is likely to increase.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the growth in the manufacture of engineering and electrical goods, but I have given the comparative figures. The growth is nothing like that of the United Kingdom industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that on the Borders there is full employment and an acute shortage of labour. In fact, Border manufacturers of woollen goods for export have had a shock in the last week or two which has made them begin to talk of filling their orders for a year's exports by July of that year. The difficulty, of course, is a change for the worse in the United States tariff. One would have expected the right hon. Gentleman to have touched upon that when he referred to the Borders, because that is a serious matter, more serious than the much more interesting matter of the empty Jedburgh factory.
Our production of engineering and heavy goods generally is not what we would expect the economy to produce. We are not exporting enough. We are given very little information about exports in the Digest of Scottish Statistics. In this kind of period it would be a great help to know what section of British exports come from Scotland. The few figures which are given are not very happy ones For example, exports of Scottish machine tools were £812,000 in 1953; £796,000 in 1954; £725,000 in 1955, and £676,000 in 1956. Yet the machine tool is as typical as can be of the best Scottish exportable goods.
Machine tools are a section of our industry where we are especially vulnerable. I was given a figure the other day for an increase in our imports of machine tools from Germany of 1,000 per cent. in the last three years. I do not stand by that figure, but I do stand by the criticism implied by it. In Scotland we are not producing anything like the amount of machine tools which an expanding economy would produce.
I will leave the subject of heavy industries and come to the new industries. In Grangemouth we have a very remarkable and lively centre of new industries. The most important is the oil refinery. That was laid down in the time of the


last Labour Government. Since then several other refineries have been built in the United Kingdom. The situation now is that the Grangemouth refinery is about one-third or one-quarter of We size of the biggest of the English refineries and its total distillation per year is about 7·5 per cent. of the English figure. It is planned that by 1957 that figure will have dropped to 7·2 per cent. and any figure below 10 per cent. is most unfavourable for Scotland. Even if one takes that very modern industry one finds that Scotland is lagging behind again.
Let us take the figures for the chemical industry and its allied trades. Since 1948 there has been an increase of 26 per cent. in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom the increase has been 85 per cent. Neither in her old traditional heavy industries nor in the new science-based industries is Scotland strong, comparatively speaking. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for making these comparisons, but comparison means a good deal to Scotland. This is not the kind of thing that can be shrugged off upon the basis that comparisons are not pleasant things to make, and that we should therefore have nothing to do with them.
The reasons why Scotland lags behind are connected with the Government's development and direction of industry. I will not attempt to make any analysis of those reasons, in view of the time, but I want to make one comment upon a point which the right hon. Gentleman raised. He commented upon the unemployment figures which, at 2·4 per cent., are the lowest since we started to record them. But, when he says that, he is doing what he has done previously over the last winter; he is ignoring the other factors which affect redundancy in Scotland, or the creation of employment, and which do not enter into these figures.
He ignores the difference between the percentage of insured populations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton has expounded to the House on more than one occasion. He ignores emigration figures. When asked about this subject, he would not reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked what was the rate of migration to England. There was no reply. My hon. Friend also asked him whether Scottish unemployment was being solved in England. and again there was no reply.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will attempt to give some answer.
In the meantime, I would point out that one part of the answer to that question is contained in the current issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, which points out that the highest point of migration of labour in the United Kingdom is from Scotland, with more than half of the Scottish migrants going to London and the adjacent areas. That is the kind of traffic which, however much we may believe in the mobility of labour, we cannot approve of. Not all these Scotsmen become leading figures, managing directors, and so on. That is the kind of thing that we must try to stop.
The proposed new plans for steel have been the subject of a considerable amount of discussion in the course of the debate and I shall speak about them in a much less detailed fashion than many hon. Members have done. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is still a little tentative about the form of these plans. He says that they perhaps include a strip mill. Whatever the plans may be; whether they include a strip mill or not, one presumes that the Iron and Steel Board will consider them in detail on technical and economic grounds, and that when the Cabinet considers them they will do so on very much wider grounds.
This is where I thought that the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) was wrong. He gave me the impression—in spite of the fact that he reminded us at the beginning that we did not know all the facts, which is quite true—that he himself was trying to break into the technical and economic argument. I am afraid I got the impression that he became rather lost. The first rule for a politician, however much he may know about the details of an industry or occupation, is to avoid going into technical and economic details, because upon them he is sure to misjudge. He must leave those questions to the technicians; he must judge the matter very broadly.
Discussing the broader issues, and speaking as a representative of the region affected by possible plans for Scotland, I have to refer to labour. The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of whether labour was available would be taken into consideration. So


far as any of us can judge, labour will be available in the Grangemouth region where, if a Scottish site is chosen, it is planned that the mill will be put. Apart from that, even in my constituency the real interest in this plan is not that it will absorb local redundant labour, but the effect it will have on the Scottish economy.
I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions which seem to me to arise in this connection and which must be considered by the Cabinet. There is the strategic question to begin with, which may be put briefly. Are we to add another strip mill in the location of the three existing strip mills in the South Wales area? Then there is the argument of equity. As is shown by the figures of broad economic progress which have been quoted both by myself and by other hon. Members, Scotland has not had enough "breaks" in industry in recent years. There is the bigger argument that in Scotland, for that very reason, there is a slack of economic capacity which could be taken up. A lot of it perhaps runs through the fingers, or across the Border; at any rate, it disappears from Scotland. But it would stay in Scotland had we a project there of this sort. We need a big installation, not only because of its own value, but because of its value as a stimulus to the Scottish economy.
If the mill goes to England or Wales, not only will Scotland lose the improvement in its economic position which would be brought about by the provision of a mill, but the comparison between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom will be even worse. The United Kingdom, with the exception of Scotland, will have added a strip mill to its present strength, while Scotland will have had no similar or comparable addition. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the prospective future importance of the Forth as a trade estuary. Bearing in mind the probable development of European trade, it seems to me that the great addition this would give to the prestige and use of the Forth estuary would be to the good of Scotland's future development.
The question of the jute industry in Dundee and district has been examined and the run-down of defence installations

and the consequent displaced labour has also been thoroughly canvassed. I will not attempt to go into details about that. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that his hon. Friends were, to put it mildly, not happy about the Dundee decision. They indicated that every town in the Dundee area will suffer. I would also remind him that a number of important questions are concerned in the running down of the Royal Ordnance factories, and I will put just one to him. The right hon. Gentleman talked about redundancy figures of 2,000 or 2,500. The other day we were given the figure of 7,000 for the United Kingdom, and it seems that the figure for Scotland is disproportionately high.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Perhaps I may put that point right for the hon. Gentleman. If he will read carefully what I said, he will see that I included certain redundancies at Bishopstoun in particular, which go beyond my hon. Friend's statement. It is not 2,500 out of 7,000.

Mr. MacPherson: I am grateful for that statement from the right hon. Gentleman. It was a matter that ought to be cleared up. I must now make way for the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I, therefore, leave out a number of things I should like to have discussed, following the points made by some of my hon. Friends.
I come back to the point at which I started and at which a number of my hon. Friends started in earlier debates, the comparison between Scotland's position and that of the United Kingdom generally. The House of Commons is not likely to leave the Secretary of State for Scotland to carry on quietly and undisturbed in his work until he brings Scotland's figures nearer to the English figures. Scotland is not likely to be happy with a second-fiddle economy.

9.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) said just before he sat down that I must not expect to be left in peace until I did certain things. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not the slightest expectation of being left in peace as long as I am Secretary of State for Scotland. I should think it very surprising if I were left in peace for one minute.
Just to show that Scotsmen can approach matters as a whole without excessive party feeling running through our debates—as a matter of fact this debate has been a good example of that—and as we are, I understand, debating an Amendment to the original Motion, I will say now that we have considerable pleasure in accepting the Amendment, or will have, at the end of the debate. I hope that adds to the general feeling that we all, whatever our differences of view, are primarily, definitely and above all interested in the future of Scotland.
The debate has been extremely interesting. One always says that sort of thing when winding up a debate, but on this occasion it can be said with justification. I only apologise that I had to miss bits of speeches and one or two full speeches because there were occasions when I had to leave the Chamber for various purposes. I have tried to follow what has been going on right through the debate. The best way in which I can tackle the job of winding up is to deal not with the points of individual hon. Members, because most hon. Members touched upon similar subjects, but to try to group the points that have been made and to deal with them by subject. If I omit any points I will either deal with them by correspondence afterwards, or, if there is time and I am asked, I will deal with them on the spot.
I will start off with a word about defence cuts. We must all be concerned to some extent about their effect, whether in the closing of Royal Ordnance factories or the reduction in the numer of contracts and sub-contracts placed by the Supply Department with Scottish firms. I have been watching the position very closely, particularly the Scottish figures, and I am in close touch with my right hon. Friends who are more closely concerned with the application of these cuts. No one likes to see a fall in employment. I understand that the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) indicated when I was not here that if things had to happen patchily he would rather not be in one of the patches. I agree with him profoundly.
However, I hope that Scotland will be able to assimilate effectively the consequences of the defence cuts. The matter will require to be watched very closely indeed, but it is better that Scottish

industrialists should be producing goods for the home and export market rather than that we should produce goods for the constantly varying demands of the Service Departments. If we get going with normal production rather than with defence production, quite apart from the implications of war and other things, it should build up into a much more stable flow of production. That is better than depending on the changing defence policies from time to time according to the international situation.
I think we are all extremely glad that Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox are taking over in principle. [Laughter.] I must use that phrase because it has been used once or twice. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does it mean?"] The details are not necessarily settled about ultimate arrangements. It will be very useful if a firm of the standing of Babcock and Wilcox with its connection with one of the nuclear consortiums takes over. There are great possibilities for the future.

Mr. Ross: Is it the intention to make the Royal Ordnance factory in Irvine available in the same way for some suitable enterprise?

Mr. Maclay: Every effort is to be made to try to find some firm to take over the factory. That is the intention, and work is proceeding on it. There is some time before it will actually be closed down, and every effort is being made to find someone to take it over.
I wish to deal with the point raised about employees at Dalmuir. I am informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply that the existing machinery in the Ministry of Supply for dealing with problems of the people involved is the Joint Industrial Council, comprising representatives of the trade unions and the Ministry, who will be looking after this problem. The chairman of the Council is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. He assures me that his Ministry is anxious wherever possible to avoid hardship to employees. The problem if it exists—which cannot be certain yet—of hardship through movement of employees will be approached with the utmost sympathy.

Mr. Bence: I must pose this question because Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox has agreed to take this factory "in principle"


and the Departments are negotiating with that firm. What are the principles to be? I hope that one of the principles will be, not only the terms of the lease and rent, but the terms on which ex-employees of the Ministry of Supply will be engaged by Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox.

Mr. Maclay: I am informed that it will be a phased operation. The worries which I think the hon. Member has in mind are very much in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary and those who are responsible. I know that from discussions I have had with my hon. Friend before this afternoon and I have been checking with him in the last hour or so on the position.
On the question of jute, I do not think I need go again over the detail of what was stated by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, but I shall try to go into some of the details raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in this debate. First, as to the future. The position will be kept under very close review and in that review representations which have been made to the President and myself about the consequences of the reduction in the mark up will be firmly kept in mind. Of course there will be continuing consultations with all concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does that mean?"] That means precisely what it says. I thought it was very clear and that for once the words were very clearly expressed.

Mr. Hoy: We are looking for the meaning.

Mr. Maclay: The meaning will be in HANSARD tomorrow and I think it will be clear from what I have said.

Mr. Steele: Is that what the Government have been doing all along?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, and we continue to do it. That is all I propose to say on that subject at present.

Mr. Strachey: If the right hon. Gentleman is leaving that point, may I ask if it means that he categorically refuses the request of his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) and all of us on this side of the House that he will give a guarantee that the present reduction in the mark up is not the

precursor of further reductions in the mark up?

Sir J. Duncan: May I remind my right hon. Friend that unless something better is said than that which he has just said, there will be no confidence among the employers in re-organising the industry to meet the new prices.

Mr. Maclay: I know that the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) realise that it is impossible to forecast definitely in the future anything in politics or anything in these economic matters. I have said that the position will be watched with the greatest care and that there will be continuing consultation with all those concerned, and I think I should now turn to the detailed points which have been asked about the Distribution of Industry Act and the steps which will be taken under it if unemployment develops.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I wonder whether the Secretary of State will at least say that in the meantime he will implement the undertakings which have been given in the past that either jute control would be preserved or some other form of protection would be found for the Dundee jute industry.

Mr. Maclay: I am not prepared to go beyond what I have said. I think I have covered the point fairly.
Perhaps I should next deal with the point about the Board of Trade office in Dundee, which several hon. Members have raised. For a long time this has not been a big office and latterly it has had only one employee. I should point out that one of the main functions in the office was not so much the detail of the Distribution of Industry Act work and getting factories moved into the district but helping firms in the area in relation to the various controls which existed during the period of shortages. I am informed that in recent months, and even in recent years, the work has been greatly diminished. The main work in connection with the Distribution of Industry Act in the area has always been from the main office in Glasgow, working with the key people in the Board of Trade in London, possibly with the first contact through the Dundee office.
I can confirm this from my own experience when I was a Member for a division in that part of the world and when I did a lot of work wtih the Board of Trade on distribution of industry problems under the Act. While I always obtained great help from the Dundee office, and while there were certain things in which it could help, the main problem of getting new industries into the area had to be tackled from the main Scottish office, working with the Board of Trade in London.
Several hon. Members asked what measures we should take in Dundee and in the area. First, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus that it is firmly intended, if necesary, to extend Development Area treatment to areas outside Dundee. Some study remains to be done on that, but that is the intention if it is necessary.
Dealing with the question of factories, here I am repeating what is the normal Distribution of Industry Act procedure. It might help if I spelled it out in some detail. First of all, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will take every opportunity to persuade firms to establish projects at Dundee or in the area. The Board of Trade will provide any extensions needed by firms already established in Government factories in Dundee and will be prepared to build new factories to let for any further projects which industrialists can be induced to establish in the Dundee Development Area which, as I have said, may need in due course to be extended outside the city limits.
The next point, Which has been discussed once or twice today, is that factories will for the present be provided to meet specific demand rather than advance factories, but consideration will be given to acquiring for re-letting one or two vacant privately-owned small factories now offered for sale in the City. As there was some argument abotu them earlier, I may say this about the advance factories. Immediately after the war—and for some yeasr after—firms were willing to move almost anywhere that would provide a building for them. That is not the position today.
It is mush more attractive to firms, and to big firms in particular, that are thinking of coming into an area, to be told, "If you come here we will produce a tailor-

made factory for you." That is obviously more attractive. I do not deny that there may be conditions in which an advance factory might be a good thing, but, by and large, those conditions do not exist at present and I think that it is much more helpful to be able to offer what has come to be called the tailor-made factory rather than the pre-made factory.
One further point about the procedure. The Treasury will make of the Dundee area an exception to its present general policy of not granting Development Area Treasury Advisory Committee loans—known as D.A.T.A.C. loans. They will give sympathetic consideration to this kind of loan for some projects in an area requiring such help. These are loans, not only for the building of a factory but for allowing the operations to start.
Finally, every effort will be made to bring together the jute firms which may have redundant factories or redundant labour—or, possibly, capital—and the firms seeking factory space, etc. Everything will be done to bring the available facilities and help to the attention of the people who might possibly come.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: In considering the extension of the Development Area arrangements to an area outside Dundee, will my right hon. Friend consider Tayport? I do not ask for a promise.

Mr. T. Fraser: Since the right hon. Gentleman has described what the Government will do to help Dundee, is it not a fact that he is telling us what the Government ought to have been doing up to now in every Development Area in the country?

Mr. Maclay: I did say when I started that I would redescribe what is Development Area practice. Quite a lot of people do not seem to know it outside this House, and even inside the House some hon. Members may have forgotten what the full procedure is. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) that, of course, I have noted what he said—

Mr. Rankin: What about steel?

Mr. Maclay: I am coming to that, but jute is an important problem, and I have devoted quite some time to it because


I am concerned about the position, and no one could avoid being concerned.
Before I leave the subject, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said that this was a case of doctrinaire laissez-faire against social values. I firmly and absolutely deny that. It is nothing of the sort. The problem was very well put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), when he said that our view is that doing nothing is hurting the industry. That is the whole point. We believe that if we go on leaving things as they are, we should generally hurt the industry. That is why we have acted. There is no question at all about being doctrinaire.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) asked: "Why choose this moment when unemployment figures are high?" The very fact that unemployment figures have been rising in Dundee is proof that something is wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is definite proof that something is wrong. It is because we feel that this has to be tackled—tackled soon in advance—and that we shall not wait for disaster that we have acted as we have done.
Of steel and the strip mill, all I can say is that the representations which have been made so forcefully by deputations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to other of my right hon. Friends and to myself are, of course, being very carefully considered, and will be carefully considered when the time comes for a decision on the siting of the strip mill. In addition, of course, the speeches that have been made throughout this debate, with the balance of argument that has been produced, will be very carefully noted, and every consideration will be given to the Scottish factors which have been so ably expressed by a great many right hon. and hon. Members.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Not the Welsh factor.

Mr. Malay: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has left the Chamber.
The only part of the opening speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) which caused me a little distress,

if I may say so, because he made a good, constructive speech which I listened to with great attention, was that part in which he was very much less than fair, I thought to Colvilles. I tried to note down his words, but I did not get them quite straight. If I remember aright, he implied that what Colvilles were doing in this very big new scheme announced this morning was merely modernisation and, though I do not think he meant to say it, he seemed to imply—I should like this to be put right, if he did not intend it, so that no false impression goes out about it—that Colvilles would not be producing the steel which Scotland really needs. That is what the hon. Gentleman said, as I took it.

Mr. T. Fraser: I want to have this right. Colvilles will produce plate for Clyde shipbuilding, but Colvilles will not produce one ton of the kind of steel for which Scotland has such a very great need.

Mr. Maclay: I hoped that there had been a misunderstanding; I could not think that the hon. Gentleman really meant what he appeared to mean. The fact is that Colvilles are producing steel now and are now expanding production of the steel which Scotland desperately needs. It would be quite tragic if our great existing Scottish industries of shipbuilding and all the others were in any way let down by our Scottish steel producers. There was an unfortunate emphasis which I thought the hon. Gentleman did not quite mean, and I wanted the thing put right. That is all right now; it is corrected.
In case there should be any misunderstanding, it is not just modernisation which the company announced this morning. I have got only what is in the Press, but, if I understood correctly, the new development will include the installation of a second blast furnace, a duplicate set of coke ovens, a new slabbing mill at Ravenscraig, and the installation of a four-high plate mill at Clydebridge, together with extensions and alterations in some of the company's other works. It is a very big scheme, and we ought to be very proud indeed that this great Scottish firm is moving on at this stage in a development like that.

Mr. Lawson: This is the second phase of a scheme which was declared some considerable time ago. It is not a new scheme. It will still leave Scotland very far behind its share—namey, 48 per cent.—of steel production in Great Britain.

Mr. Maclay: I have very little more time. I do not want to go into detailed figures and statistics. All I am emphasising is that this is a highly satisfactory development which we are extremely glad to know is taking place. It will produce some very valuable improvements in the availability of Scottish steel. Shipbuilding, which has been discussed and which I must say a word or two about, has suffered from a shortage of plate, and there have been delays. I think that there has been great damage done to our Scottish shipbuilders' reputation throughout the world because, though the ships they build today are, as always, the best in the world, our delivery dates have not been good.

Mr. Rankin: The steel shortage.

Mr. Maclay: Partly steel shortage, but there have been other factors. The steel shortage has been a major factor, and I hope that we shall, with this new development, really catch up with our steel deliveries.
Some concern was expressed about shipbuilding figures. It must be realised that to take isolated years is risky when one is dealing with launchings. Values are probably more reliable. Of course, from year to year, delivery dates must vary and the period of building must vary according to the principal type of ship built. If it is a tramp ship, it is not a big job; if it is a big tanker, that is another type of job, and if the ship is the "Queen Mary", it is a very long job. The figures must be studied carefully before one can form any very serious conclusions about actual launching figures in any given year.

Mr. Rankin: What does that mean?

Mr. Maclay: It means exactly what I said. It seemed to me that there were criticisms made, or that concern was being shown, about the shipbuilding figures recently, and I did not want any implication to go out from this House in any way that Scottish shipbuilding was falling behind.

Mr. Rankin: The issue there is between tonnage and value. If we build one ship worth £80 million, does that represent more than the corresponding tonnage?

Mr. Maclay: The issue was more than that. It was a question of apparently falling figures in shipbuilding. I have exactly three minutes more, and I am afraid that I have missed out quite a number of points which hon. Members have made, but the matters I have had to deal with are themselves very important. I regret it, but I will certainly look through the OFFICIAL REPORT very carefully, and if necessary write to hon. Members.
I should like to do as one or two hon. Members have done and try to draw some sort of balance sheet of what is happening in Scotland. I agree that there is cause for concern in many directions. I listened with the greatest interest to the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs, in which he drew statistical conclusions from a large number of statistics, but I think it would be a tremendous mistake if we allowed it to go out from this debate that, on the matters which we have very properly been discussing and the problems with which we are faced, there is no other side to the argument. I am not accusing any hon. Member of sounding too gloomy. The danger of the situation we are in is that, because we have problems of the jute industry, the Royal Ordnance factories, and the shale industry, all emphasis in public is on that side, whereas the other side of the picture is pretty good.
Great developments are taking place, and if we turn to page 7 of the Report we find matters of the greatest importance to Scotland. We find that we are well in advance with gas turbine propulsion, and that the first ship to be propelled by that means to be built in Britain will shortly be built on the Clyde. There is also very good news about the association of one of our Clyde yards with the nuclear propulsion of big tankers. I could go on through an enormous list. We have other firms associated with four out of the six nuclear energy consortiums, and we have our atomic energy stations for developing electricity production. In fact, if we are ready to seize and to go on seizing the


opportunities now presenting themselves in Scotland, I have very little doubt how Scotland will fare in the future.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, having considered matters relating to industry in Scotland, takes note of the provision made for this purpose in the Estimates for the current year.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SAFETY REGULATIONS)

9.58 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B, Godber): I beg to move,
That the Draft Agriculture (Power Take-off) Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
As both these Regulations in the name of my right hon. Friend arise under the same Act, I wonder if it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss them both together.

Mr. Speaker: That will be convenient.

Mr. Godber: The two sets of Regulations which my right hon. Friend has laid before Parliament—the Draft Agriculture (Power Take-off) Regulations and the Draft Agriculture (Ladders) Regulations—are the first to be debated in the House, though not the first to be laid under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, which was passed last year; we have already had the First-Aid Regulations submitted.
We accepted in this Act the obligation that certain of the Regulations had to be subject to affirmative Resolution, and I would confine myself to explaining what the Regulations we are now discussing are designed to do. I will deal with the Power Take-off Regulations first.
The power take-off, if left unguarded, can obviously cause serious injury to anyone who comes in contact with it while it is revolving. It is not practical to require it to be completely shielded, because the shaft has to be attached and detached and the take-off must therefore be accessible from behind and from below.
It is, however, a very effective protection against accidents to have a strong shield fitted to the back of the tractor and running over the top and down the sides of the power take-off. Most tractors with power take-offs already have a shield of this kind added to them. We believe that there are 80,000 to 90,000 tractors with unguarded take-offs now in use, although some of these will be on holdings where no workers are employed; the Regulations, therefore, do not apply to them. I would say, however, that the advice we


give on safety will not distinguish between workers and others and we hope that in due course all the unguarded power takeoffs will disappear.
The power take-off shaft—I apologise; this is highly technical—is even more dangerous than the power take-off itself. It is very easy for people to come in contact with the shaft inadvertently while it is revolving or for a driver of a tractor—he might be leaning backwards, for instance—to get some part of his clothes entangled in it; and once caught up in the shaft, the victim is powerless to help himself.
I need not say more in justification of the Regulations than that on an average four or five people are killed in this way every year. The only solution is to fit a guard along the shaft, although if part of the shaft is already safely protected by other parts of the machine, so that people cannot come in contact with it, it is necessary only to cover the exposed part.
Regulation 4 requires that to be done. The guard will normally have to extend all round the shaft. However, a number of shafts have already been fitted with guards in the form of an inverted "U", and we propose to allow this type of guard on machines which are already in use when the Regulations come into force, provided—and this is important—that the shaft is not more than 2 feet from the ground and the guard extends at least 2 inches below the bottom of it on either side. That is set out in the Regulations.
I believe that there are just under a quarter of a million machines with unguarded power take-off shafts. In view of the numbers involved, we have considered carefully how long employers should be allowed to bring their existing equipment up to the requirements and how long manufacturers can be expected to take to adapt their products. At first, we proposed to make it an offence under the Regulations to sell or to hire a machine that did not comply, but on further consideration we concluded that if we made this a general requirement on all machines sold or hired for use, we should be going outside the powers in the Act, which are limited to the safety of employed workers. That is the relevant phrase. If, on the other hand, we endeavoured by regulation to require manufacturers and dealers or hirers to know whether any

given machine would be used in circumstances where the Regulations applied, we should be imposing an impracticable and an unenforceable requirement on them.
During our consultations, the manufacturers assured us that they will do everything in their power to ensure complete and satisfactory guarding of machines. This assurance is not affected by the question of what period we allow for compliance.
We have laid down in Regulation 1 that all power take-offs to which the Regulations apply must have shields by 1st August, 1958, except that on existing tractors which were not designed to have a shield fitted, the job will be more difficult and we propose to allow a further twelve months. There is, therefore, just over twelve months in the first instance and two years in the second instance.
The shaft will sometimes be more difficult to deal with than the power take-off, and for shaft guards on new machines we propose to allow 18 months, but for machines already existing on the operative date—1st February, 1959—the period will be extended by a further six months to 1st August; so that for existing machines the period will be just over two years, making it the same for both types.
The representatives of the farmers and manufacturers put it to us that this last class should have been allowed three or, as was suggested in one case, even four years, but we felt that two years was not an unreasonable requirement. Naturally, any period would not be long enough if large numbers of employers left it to the last moment to get the job done. We must face it—there is a tendency that way. However, we for our part will do all we can to remind the farmers of their obligations and to persuade them to get on with the job without waiting until they are compelled to do so by law.
We have so drawn the Regulations, we hope, as to lay responsibility for compliance in fair proportions on the employers and the workers. Farmers cannot be expected to oversee all the operations of their workers as continuously and closely as, perhaps, factory employers oversee their workers, and we thought it right that it should be as much an offence for the worker to use a noncomplying machine as for an employer


to cause or permit him to do so. There has to be co-operation from both sides.
Ladders, though they may sound a less formidable matter than power take-offs, are by no means unimportant as a cause of accidents in agriculture. Indeed, in the five years from 1951 until 1955 on the average three people were killed each year by falling from ladders, and, of course, there were many more who were injured. The remedy is clearly less easy than that applicable to power take-offs, because there is no simple means of protecting a worker from the dangers, which are many and various, and which may arise either from the way the ladder is used or the condition it is in.
The Regulations cover all portable rigid ladders, of whatever material, including step and trestle ladders, if they are used by agricultural workers in the course of their employment. They are directed to ensuring that ladders are kept in a safe condition and used in sensible ways, and all they require employers to do in the three months before they come into operation—that is to say, three months after the Regulations are made—is to see that their ladders comply with the requirements of Regulation 3, as most well-constructed and well-maintained ladders, of course, already do. As with power take-offs, we have thought it fair to lay a share of responsibility on the worker as well as on the employer. The case is, perhaps, even stronger here, because it will be harder for an employer to keep a continuous eye on his ladders.
Regulation 4, therefore, forbids a worker to use, as well as his employer to cause or permit him to use, a ladder which is unsafe in certain specified ways or is not securely erected, and Regulation 5 requires workers to report to their employers if they discover certain obvious defects in ladders with which they are asked to work.
I have tried quickly to deal with the main points in these Regulations. I think that, perhaps, everyone in the House will support the general intentions of these Regulations. I shall be happy to answer afterwards any questions which hon. Members may raise, if the House will permit me to do so.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We are obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the concise and clear account he has given of the purpose and effect of these Regulations. I assure him that we join him in welcoming the general purpose of the Regulations. As I have one or two serious criticisms to make of the Regulations I think I should say first, by way of preface, that we appreciate very much the step taken by the Minister in giving effect to the safety precautions for agriculture under the Act.
He has given a lead. He was very cooperative when we discussed the legislation in Committee. In Committee we were anxious to make the requirements of the present Regulations mandatory. We received assurances from the right hon. Gentleman, and by these Regulations tonight he is carrying out the undertakings he gave us. For that we are very greatly obliged.
We are, however, concerned that he has taken so long. I shall, perhaps, revert to this. I realise that there have been exhaustive consultations about this matter, but I would call the attention of the House to the length of time it has taken, partly because of the very necessary consultations, to bring these Regulations before the House. It is a very serious reflection upon the Government, who have failed to implement other recommendations in the Gowers Report. Here we have a Minister who has done his best to implement the Gowers Report but, notwithstanding that, he has taken a very long time to take the first step, and this is a very grave reflection on the failure of the Government to implement the other recommendations of the Report.
As I say, we welcome the general intention of the right hon. Gentleman. We appreciate the purpose of the present Regulations, but we regret very much that they are open to very serious objection. I think that this is the first time that safety regulations have been laid before the House which are, in fact, seriously objected to both by the employers and by the workers. We have received very strong representations both from the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural


Workers making very serious criticisms of the Regulations in their present form.
I would say in passing that I argued during the Committee stage that it would have been better to have created an advisory council to advise the Minister upon these Regulations. I am thoroughly convinced now that that would have been the better step to take. We are discussing this in no doctrinaire spirit; we were not dogmatic on either side. There is something to be said on either side, whether the negotiations should be formalised or unofficial, but I have always felt that in matters like this we do not get satisfactory negotiations when we look to civil servants who have this flair for ad hoc negotiations with various people separately.
It is far better when there is a conflict of interest to get the parties around a table, and I am sure that in this case, if the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers had been round a table we should have had Regulations on which we could have agreed. I have a profound respect for both sides of industry, and I think that they would have considered in this way the representations made by other people affected. Unfortunately, that has not happened. I think that is one of the reasons why we have, unfortunately, Regulations which are approved by us all and yet are subject to very serious criticism.
I want to make one or two criticisms which occur to me personally and then deal with the points raised by the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers. I have mentioned the criticism that the Government have not kept to their own timetable. I have given, I think, our reason for that. I hope that, in view of the fact that the Government were not able to keep up to their own timetable, they will consider a more effective form of consultation.
With regard to some of the provisions, one which the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned in some detail is the enclosure of the power take-off. I should have thought that it would have been possible to have provided for the complete enclosure of the power take-off by a guard which completely enclosed it. I cannot be dogmatic about this, but I assume, very naturally, that there have

been consultations with the manufacturers. I have, however, seen some of the illustrations of the guards provided in other countries where such a provision is required, and it seems, at any rate from the illustrations I have seen, that in those cases there is complete enclosure.
The Parliamentary Secretary may say that it is unlikely that a worker will be injured beneath a power take-off, but unless there is any overwhelmingly practical and technical ground for not enclosing it, it should be done From a cursory examination—I cannot claim to be more well informed than that—it appears that this has been done in other countries.
The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the unions have taken up the point about the strength of the shield. We know that that is because the shields may have to bear the weight of a man standing on them. I should have thought it would have been better to make the weight-carrying capacity more than 250 1b., but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to satisfy us that he has thoroughly considered this matter and is satisfied that that capacity is more than adequate—as it should be as this is a safety device.
In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor gave a satisfactory assurance about the use which would be made of exemption certificates. We appreciate that there will be an annual report and that we will be informed about what use has been made of the exemptions, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman can assure us that these certificates will be used only for such as experimental purposes.

Mr. Godber: I am happy to give that assurance now.

Mr. Willey: I am very much obliged. We would rather have that assurance now than wait until we have the report.
The first of the two major objections which have been made is that put by the National Farmers' Union, that the entire responsibility is placed upon the farmer. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, we should say that the entire responsibility is placed on the farmer and on the farm worker. The N.F.U. feels that the primary responsibility should be placed on the manufacturer and distributor. My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and the


hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) raised this matter in Committee and the then Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not feel that the primary responsibility should be placed on the manufacturer and the distributor, that the manufacturer and distributor would depend upon selling machines which would satisfy the customer, and that they would not have sales if the machines were not safe. That is an argument which I can accept.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The Minister has no power under the Act to do so and, under these Regulations, such an Order would be completely ultra vires. The Minister of Agriculture has no power to make such an Order.

Mr. Willey: I will come to that point in a moment, because the Parliamentary Secretary gave the two grounds, that it was impracticable and ultra vires. I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor said in Standing Committee, that in all such safety legislation the primary and essential responsibility must lie on the occupier or employer. That principle has been successfully adopted in the Factories Acts.
A further point, which the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) will appreciate, is that in any case we could not accept the N.F.U.'s proposal, because if we placed the primary responsibility on the manufacturer, we should have difficulty with court decisions, because although the manufacturer could be prosecuted and fined, an injured worker would have no cause for damages. He would not be able to sue the manufacturer and it would not be sufficient comfort to him that the manufacturer had been fined.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Even if the responsibility were on the manufacturer to incorporate a safety device in the manufacture, there would be a concurrent responsibility on the employer to see that the machine used on the farm had the safety device. A farm worker would be covered in that way.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member has anticipated the point I was about to make. While I could not fully accept the N.F.U.'s suggestion, I feel that the manufacturer ought to share a concurrent

liability. I do not want to create a wrong impression and I would say at once that I believe—unless the Parliamentary Secretary corrects me—that that would be accepted by the manufacturers. I am sure that the Institution of British Agricultural Engineers would not oppose the acceptance of such liability.
We have to consider, then, why the Government have not done this. We must have a rather fuller explanation than we have had so far from the Parliamentary Secretary because, in the original draft Regulations, there was provision for placing liability upon the manufacturer or distributor. The original draft Regulations made it an offence to sell or let for hire for use in agriculture. We want to know, first, why the Department has changed its mind.
I now turn to the two objections made against the imposition of this liability, which was originally imposed upon the manufacturer and distributor. I do not think that it is impracticable, although the Parliamentary Secretary says that it is. I take the view that the Ministry originally took, that it is not impracticable. No point about exports is involved. I do not think that it would harm the export of our agricultural machinery if it were overtly and patently safe. I assume that some of our manufacturers must already be exporting machinery with safety devices; they certainly would have to do so to get into some of the European markets, because it is a requirement in some Continental countries that there shall be these safety devices.
I can see the force of the argument, but I do not think that it is a sufficient argument, to say, in the case of tractors, for instance, that the manufacturer does not know the use to which the tractor is being put; that it may be a multi-purpose tractor. I think that we can have designated tractors for agricultural use and have safety devices provided in those cases. I do not think that there is any practical difficulty in providing for this liability.
Is there, therefore, as the hon. and learned Member suggests, a case of this being ultra vires? I would say at once that the answer is "No." I think that the power is there, if we look at Section 1. I concede that there may be difficulties in its enforcement.

Mr. Doughty: I made it quite clear that the whole Act deals with relations between employer and employee—farmer and agricultural worker—in respect of safety, health and welfare. It is not possible to make regulations going beyond that in order to deal with third parties, even though they may have indirect interests such as the selling of their goods. If we make safety regulations with regard to electricity we cannot make Regulations to control the supply of electricity any more than we can with regard to the supply of tractors.

Mr. Willey: I do not want to pursue this at the moment because it is very difficult to conduct a discussion like this in the House. I would remind the hon. Member that the Act expressly provides for Regulations
prohibiting the sale or letting on hire of any machinery, plant, equipment or appliance which does not comply with requirements of the regulations.
I would say that, on the face of it, it would be within the provisions of the Act, but I concede that there are some difficulties in the matter of enforcement.
Without getting too involved in the legal niceties of this matter, it appears to me that the Ministry was right in the first instance, when it issued the draft Regulations, in believing that it had power to make this a concurrent liability—although in regard to inspection under Section 10 there may have been some difficulty.
Having considered the representations made by the National Farmers' Union, while I think they go too far, I also think they have a case regarding the imposition of liability upon the manufacturer or distributor. I think it a pity that this has not been done with regard to new machinery and to the provision of safety devices on old machinery. I say this particularly regarding the provision of safety devices to be put upon present machinery, because I do not like to envisage farmers resorting to home-made devices. First of all, they would be at grave risk, because should there be an accident the courts almost invariably would find against them. A farmer should be put in the position of having some assurance that there are guards available which would satisfy the courts. For those reasons, I think it would have been better had the liability also been

placed on the manufacturer and distributor as originally intended by the right hon. Gentleman.
The second objection which I have considered is from the point of view of the workers. These Regulations, so far as I know, are absolutely novel. I cannot find any precedent under the Factories Acts. I agree that the second Regulation is rather different, but the power take-off Regulations, place the same responsibility upon the employer as upon the worker. So far as I know, although there may be exceptions, that is not done under the Factories Acts or other safety regulations. I can see that this puts the worker in a difficult position. Here we have machinery with a guard. It is not the case of a worker misusing the guard or displacing it. It is saying that the worker and employer are equally responsible if the guard is not effective and does not meet the standards set by this Regulation.
Generally speaking, and without coming to a legal point which I will touch on in a moment, I think this is undesirable. It is undesirable to put a worker in the position that he is contemporaneously committing an offence on the same grounds as the employer. He is less likely to complain. But there is a further difficulty which, I think, creates a substantial objection to the Regulations as at present drafted. What is the position of the worker if there is a claim at common law? He is in breach of statutory duty automatically because this is a current liability in identical circumstances upon the employer and worker.
The worker, therefore, will find himself in great difficulty with regard to contributory negligence. I should have thought this most prejudicial. I do not know whether it has been considered by the Department, but, on the face of it, it would appear most prejudicial to the worker. This is not the position, at any rate generally speaking, under other safety regulations so far as I know. I could understand—it would be quite proper and I make no complaint about it—the imposition of the liability if the worker interferes with the guard or misuses it. But here there is no suggestion of that. The Regulations provide that a worker employed in agriculture shall not use machinery which is not effectively guarded under these Regulations. I am


sure it would not be the desire of any party to these consultations that it should be prejudicial to the worker. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that, apart from the several points I have raised, there are two cardinal objections to these Regulations as it is at present drafted.
I have no intention of dividing the House on these Regulations. They are desirable; we accept their purpose and want them implemented as soon as possible. We do not want to create the impression that we are divided about this matter. I earnestly entreat the Minister to consider these two representations and to assure us that he will meet both the National Farmers' Union and the trade unions and try to resolve these difficulties, and that if there is doubt—not whether it is his view against their view—he will introduce amending Regulations.
With regard to the ladders, the point I made about the liability of the worker is not quite so difficult as in the first Regulation. In the second, we get three categories of responsibility: the responsibility of the employer only, the responsibility of the employer and worker, and the responsibility of the employer to report, which I accept. I accept many of the obligations upon the worker in this case; they are specific and understandable. The common obligation of the employer is differentiated from the employer's cardinal obligation and liability. If we look at the matter in the light of the possible effect upon a claim made by the worker, the matter to be open to review.
I have not raised these points to make it difficult to implement these Regulations; far from it. We want them. We would like an assurance that the two points I have raised will be carefully examined, that the Minister will try to assure both parties that if it is possible to extend the scope of the liability he will do so, and that if it is possible to protect absolutely the worker, in the light of what I have said, he will do so.
I hope also that the Minister will recognise that the industry has neglected safety measures very much in the past, because of the way in which it is situated.I am not blaming it, but that is a fact. This is not a difficulty peculiar to this country; it has been the experience in

other countries. I hope that, apart from enforcing these Regulations, the Minister will take every opportunity of propaganda and education to inculcate into the industry the essential necessity of better safety provisions. We would rather avoid accidents than have accidents in breach.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am very much in sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about responsibility being put upon employers, but I am afraid he has not a hope of getting what he wants done. I understand that it would be impossible to bring in any sort of order, as it would be ultra vires. It would need fresh legislation, with all its attendant difficulties.
Yesterday, several members of the National Farmers' Union, from branches in my part of the country, visited several hon. Members of this House to see what could be done. It would appear from what they said that the manufacturers said they could hold themselves under no obligation to do anything about this problem. We had a word with my right hon. Friend the Minister, who said he was not of that point of view. He believed that the manufacturers were going to do everything they could to make sure that these power take-offs were made safe. The misunderstanding must be between the people who came to see hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself yesterday, and what the Minister seems to have in mind about the manufacturers' intentions. The point might well be cleared up.

Mr. Godber: Perhaps I could clear this point up at once. During my opening remarks I chose my words rather carefully. I said on this point:
During our consultations the manufacturers assured us that they will do everything in their power to ensure complete and satisfactory guarding of machines.
Subsequent to the discussion I had yesterday, I took the trouble to check on this to be quite sure. I got in touch again with the Agricultural Engineers' Association and advised them that I was going to use those exact words tonight. In a letter I had from them yesterday they did not in any way dissent from that view.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure the House will be glad to know that we have that gentleman's agreement and undertaking from the manufacturers to do what we cannot force them to do by law.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: It is to be regretted that, after discussions with representatives of the employers and workers in agriculture and the manufacturers, there is failure to agree that these Regulations really meet the intention of the Act.
The farmers are concerned that there is not an obligation on those who sell the machines to see that in all respects they conform to the Regulations. The workers are concerned that too big a responsibility has been placed on the worker as such to see that the machines conform with the Regulations. The hon. Gentleman has stated that, arising out of the discussions with representatives of the manufacturers of agricultural machines, he has had satisfactory assurances that they will do everything they can to make the machines conform with the Regulations. But to what does that refer? Does it refer to new machines which will be on sale in a year or two? Does it also refer to machines in use today? Do the manufacturers give an undertaking that they will be able to supply guards conforming to the Regulations and that they can be fitted to all the latest models of tractors and power take-offs now in use?
This problem will be bigger in a few years' time. In 1958 and 1959 the proportion of tractors made before the law was passed will be far greater than those which are new to the farms. Farmers will be concerned to know if the assurance applies to the latest machines and tractors now on the farms. Will it be easy to bring them into accord with the Regulations? That aspect of the matter is of the utmost concern to farmers. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give a full assurance to cover that, he ought to get in touch with manufacturers and farmers' representatives and have further discussions.
Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Minister will consider circulating a simple leaflet on these Regulations for the farmers and farm

workers? If the farm workers are to be legally responsible, a simple leaflet which they can easily understand should be widely distributed among them. It should be drafted in consultation not only with the National Farmers' Union but also with representatives of the agricultural workers. It should be circulated throughout the country through branches of the Agricultural Workers' Union, and certainly through machinery clubs, which are doing such good work in bringing workers into touch with the latest devices and machines and how they should use them. That is of the utmost importance. I hope that there will not be the same difficulty with regard to this matter as there was under a recent Act with regard to forms which were not understood and not even available. Let us have something very simple which the farm workers and the farmers throughout the country can understand.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: This debate has already shown the wisdom of making the safety Regulations a matter of an affirmative Resolution, because they are extremely important. Although the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and other people have criticised the delay in bringing forward these Regulations, I do not think it has been sufficiently appreciated how detailed have been the nature and the range of the consultations undertaken and the number of parties which the Ministry has consulted in the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary told me the other day in answer to a Parliamentary Question that no less than 64 organisations have been separately consulted in the matter of these Regulations and of the first-aid Regulations, which are not before the House at the moment.
I wish to make one or two remarks about the safety Regulations. I think that the ladder one is fairly straightforward, and all I would say is that I welcome the requirement that an employee or anyone else should report a visible defect in a ladder because I think that might serve to prolong the life of farm ladders. Too often one comes across a ladder which has a couple of rungs missing and no one knows how it happened. One will now be able to know how it happens, and perhaps be in a position to make suggestions.
A difficult safety Regulation is the power take-off one. I want to mention one or two points with regard to the National Farmers' Union's concern that the Regulations should have been obligatory on the manufacturers and distributors as well as on the employer. I have a good deal of sympathy with that view, and I must say that I am sorry to find that it is considered to be ultra vires. My impression in Committee was that we hoped that we were taking powers to enable us to impose regulations on whatever people or bodies might be appropriate in order to secure our objective, namely, the avoidance of accidents on farms. It was certainly my belief that we had the necessary power to impose regulations on manufacturers.
Throughout the Committee stage—indeed from the outset—I was concerned because I thought that we were paying far too much attention to the precedent of the Factory Acts in dealing with this quite new field of safety. I feel that it is a very dangerous precedent upon which to work because conditions are so different. I had hoped that we could have started out in a new field without being bound by factory example, but borrowing from it where desirable.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member is criticising the Act. He can discuss only what is in the Regulations.

Mr. Hill: It is only because the draft Regulation which has already been referred to has been found to be ultra vires that I bring it in, because it seems to me that one of my fears has come to light in a rather unexpected manner. We may find that the factory precedents to which reference has been made may be rather hard to apply in agriculture.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will follow the Regulations more closely.

Mr. Hill: Mention has been made of the objection to the worker having concurrent responsibility with his employer for seeing that guards are fitted, but I think that there is one great difference between farm and factory practice in this respect. In the field, the machine operator is also the machine adjuster and fitter. He goes out on his own and if, unfortunately, the machine needs adjust-

ment he will very often have to remove the power take-off guard to make it. The safety load clutch may be slipping and need tightening and so on. Therefore, although the farmer may see that the guard is in position when the man leaves for the field, it is part of the man's ordinary duty, when in the field, to adjust the machine as necessary, and that may involve removing the guard. I therefore do not see how, in the context of agriculture, we can possibly not make the worker also responsible for observing the precautions while he is using a machine.
In so far as the farmer is able and capable of seeing that the guards are fitted, clearly it is his duty to do so, but if it came to any negligence, I imagine that the question of contributory negligence would obviously be of importance. The doctrine which I understand might obtain is that of last opportunity—who last had the chance of seeing that the guard was in position. But I do not think that we can do other than we are doing by these Regulations, which is to place the duty equally on the employer and on the worker, because the object, of course, is to avoid accidents. I am convinced that unless the worker is warned to be alert, an accident may happen however many guards are provided.
I very much regret that manufacturers are not having this obligation put upon them, because it is desirable that we should work towards a state of design in future in which as many implements as possible should be interchangeable. The power take-off shaft is one of the bogies. Firm A's tractor will take Firm A's power-driven implements but will not take those of Firm B. It would help if, by regulation, we could evolve a British Standard which would enable all manufacturers gradually to produce implements which were interchangeable, because one of the dangers will be that, however many guards we have, the power take-off shaft and the guard will not marry up, and it is then difficult to make the guard secure.
The advantage of having regulations for manufacturers generally would be that they would have to get together and, in conjunction with the British Standards Institution, would evolve a standard fitting. In the long run, that would be of the greatest advantage to agriculture. As things are, this is purely voluntary, and although every manufacturer will


guard his own machinery it will be more difficult to get them to come together to evolve a standard product. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will watch that, because it bears directly on future danger and chance of accident.
Finally, may I repeat the plea already made for simple publicity, and ask, once again, that the Ministry should consider, without too much delay, the making of a film to illustrate farm dangers and the way they may be avoided.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I must ask the House to forbear with an engineer intruding into this discussion, but when I first read these Regulations I saw that once again, by their ambiguity, they were recreating what, in factories, has been a terrific problem all my life—and, I have no doubt, before.
In Article 3 of these Regulations, reference is made to "using a tractor". As we use that expression in industry, it would be assumed that the tractor is being used for its legitimate purpose, driving some machinery, hauling something, or ploughing. In the Factories Act, it is provided that, if one is using a machine tool in its productive processes, and it is unguarded, if one has oneself removed the guard one is liable oneself, but if the employer has not seen to it that the guard is on, then he is liable and can be sued at common law. However, if a man is employed in industry as a skilled man, as a tool maker, as I was, that is when the difficulty arises.
A tool maker is very often called upon to go to a machine, a big press, for instance, and overhaul something which has gone wrong. All the guards are taken off in order to get at the tool; they have to be. Accidents happen in these circumstances. I saw an apprentice lose all his fingers; he was working at a machine with the guard off—he could not work otherwise—and he had to operate and adjust moving parts of the machine. He set the parts of the machine in motion with the guard off in order to make the necessary observations and adjustments. In the course of doing his job, he suffered the accident, but he had no cause of complaint because the machine was not being used.
What is the position as regards tractors? I thought that the hon. Gentle-

man the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) was going to deal with this point, because he mentioned the mechanic going out into the fields and having to make adjustments to the machine if it broke down. Very often, with spline shafts, a man cannot check or test them without taking the guards off. After taking off the guards and making the necessary adjustments, must he then put all the guards back before he sets the shaft in motion, if he has to overhaul the machine? The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has worked in industry, and he knows this very well. There are very many machines where the time taken in removing and putting back the guards would be out of all proportion to the work of repair.

Mr. Ray Mawby: That is the law.

Mr. Bence: That is the law, I know; but the hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are many cases where, especially if they are guards which must be capable of withstanding a weight of 250 1b., the farmer or farm worker would spend an enormous amount of time pushing them off and on in order to make adjustments.
It is a serious problem in industry, and it has been a problem for years. The hon. Member for Totnes is, I believe, an electrical engineer, and he knows about these things. There are types of machine where the taking off and putting on of the guards could be a six-hour job. Then, after having put them all back on, the man may find, on testing the machine, that it is still faulty and have to spend more hours removing the guards again, in order to make another ten-minute adjustment It just is not practical.
We fought for what we regarded as proper protection in industry and we tried to get the Factories Act amended. All trade unionists in the engineering industry know that the fight has been going on for years. But we got nowhere. Now, in agriculture, the same sort of thing is to be repeated and perpetuated.
The tractor driver whom a farmer employs is expected to be not only a driver but a mechanic as well. What is to be the position of the motor mechanic? He will have to deal with machines without guards and will have temporarily to run them in that state. One cannot


keep on taking guards off and putting them on again; it just is not practical. Yet, according to these Regulations, if a farm worker or farmer allows a machine even to be tried out, if he allows the shaft to go into motion without a heavy guard on or with loose clothes a certain distance from the shaft, he commits an offence. I presume that in so doing the worker, if injured, would not be covered and would have no case at common law.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: How does the hon. Member see the case of an agricultural engineer who attends to a broken-down tractor machine in a field and who is not the employee of the farmer? He must take off the guard to repair it. I agree that it must be tested and that the engineer cannot go to all the trouble of putting it on. What is the position? Is the farmer responsible? Are such men covered by their own employers' insurance, or what? They must be covered in some way.

Mr. Bence: I cannot speak of that, but in the factory they are not covered.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: They are on the farm.

Mr. Bence: But in the factory they are not.
I am not conversant with all the conditions on the farm, but when I read the Regulations I related them to my experience as a mechanic in industry, as one who has done a great deal of maintenance work and seen an awful lot of accidents through men testing and operating machines, not in the production process, but in checking and testing them and putting them into production. I have seen men injured and no claim made. When I read the Regulations I considered them unsatisfactory, because it seemed to me that similar circumstances were being created and the same anomaly would exist.
I should like to know whether I am drawing false conclusions. If I am, I am sorry for having delayed the House; but if not, I hope that the Regulations will be withdrawn and redrafted so that the man who is a driver/mechanic, although he has the guard on when using the machine in the processes for which it is intended, shall not be held liable if an error or fault develops in the

machine and he has to strip off parts of it to rectify the error. Surely, he is to be covered if anything happens to him notwithstanding that in doing the maintenance repair the guard is off.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has raised a matter of considerable substance and we could spend half the night debating it, but I do not propose to do so. I merely wish to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whether he remembers the words used by his predecessor when we took up the question of making manufacturers responsible for ensuring that the machinery they turned out was properly guarded.
These are the words to which I refer:
In these regulations we shall specify what safeguards, guards, and so on, are to be employed, and that will in effect prevent a manufacturer who fails to conform with those regulations from selling his particular machinery because it would be an offence for the farmer to use it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th March, 1956; c. 24–5.]
That was quite explicit and satisfied those of us who in Standing Committee took up the question of manufacturers being compelled to turn out their machinery properly guarded according to the regulations. That was the opinion of my hon. Friend's predecessor.
What has altered the opinion of the Department so that that cannot be done? I do not have much fear, because generally speaking manufacturers have properly guarded their machines. At one time, chaff-cutters were turned out without any guard. Now, every one is properly guarded. I can only hope that the manufacturers will stand by what they have already told my hon. Friend and will ensure that all machinery which they turn out complies with the Regulations.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I welcome both sets of Regulations but I should like to draw attention particularly to those concerning ladders. I notice that they contain provision for the reporting by workers of defects. I regard that as particularly important. Regulation 4 deals with the obligations on both employer and worker.
That spirit of co-operation in agriculture is tremendously valuable, and I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary why the power take-off Regulations, which are the more important of the two, do not embrace approximately the same provisions as are contained in the Regulations dealing with ladders.
I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to Regulation 4 (4) of the take-off Regulations, and to the words
and shall he maintained in good condition
This obviously embraces the reporting of defects, and it is particularly in respect of those words that I ask for an explanation why, in the first Regulations, we are not having a provision about the reporting of defects by workers.
There is only one other observation which I should like my hon. Friend to enlarge upon, and that was one made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), about the publicity which will be given to these Regulations on the farms. I believe that to be most important, and I hope that provision will be made whereby we shall see a card or some sort of factory regulation brought out, so that it can hang in the tractor shed, or on the implement, or in the place where the implements will be looked after. If my hon. Friend will give me assurances on these points it will be of great interest to everyone.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I wish to support the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) in the point he raised, which was put to us by a number of farmers two nights ago, and to say that the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary is quite satisfactory as far as it goes, but that the farmers wanted something more than that. I am sorry that the hon. Member who was interrupting a short time ago on points of law is not here now, because I cannot understand this position of ultra vires.
In Section 1 (3, b) of the Act there are the words:
… prohibiting the sale or letting or hire of any machinery, plant, equipment or appliance which does not comply with the requirements of the Regulations.
If that is in the Act, why is it ultra vires to put it in Regulations? Why is it outside the Regulations, when it is in the Act? Are the Regulations greater

than the Act? I am not a lawyer in any sense—for which I am often glad—but it seems to me that when those words are in the Act they can be included, and the provision can be included, in the Regulations. I am sorry we cannot have it explained, unless the hon. Member will explain it, but that is the point that has troubled the farmers.
I cannot understand why it has been necessary to make the date of the application of the Regulations to new tractors twelve months hence. It seems that new tractors can at present have these appliances fitted. Surely manufacturers are not making them now without these safety guards, so the time could well have been advanced by some six months at least.
One difficulty that has been mentioned was that of tractors which have been in operation for many years; but I cannot see how any responsibility for their condition today can be placed upon those who made them years ago. It seems to me that subsidiary firms will produce the guards that are necessary for these tractors as quickly as possible. Perhaps the Minister could get in touch with these machinery firms and bring this matter to their notice, because it is essential that the guards be provided quickly. One of the greatest dangers with tractors would arise if farmers themselves were to improvise safety guards for them. That would be far more dangerous than leaving the tractors as they are. That is what many of us have observed. I hope that the Minister will urge the manufacturers to press on with the making of the guards so that they may be fitted as quickly as possible.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Godber: With permission, and by leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of the important questions raised in the debate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) raised one or two of considerable interest and two of substantial importance. In the first place, he asked about the length of time it had taken to produce the Regulations. I was a little disappointed that he did that, because we have worked hard to get them out. For example, we had consultations with thirty-three different associations about them, about highly technical matters. I think the hon. Gentleman will realise on knowing that that we did our best. I am sorry


that we have not pleased him. We are just as anxious as he is to make progress.
He asked me whether it would be feasible to have the dangerous parts of power take-offs completely enclosed, and not to have just a shield on top. He informed us that he knew of some foreign makes that had a completely enclosing fitting. The only foreign ones I have seen are rather similar to our own. I am satisfied that the shield we propose will do the job we want done. It would be very difficult to work the completely enclosing shield; there would have to be a movable part and I think it would often prove impracticable. I believe that we shall achieve what we are seeking to do by the means we propose.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the 250 lb. weight, I would say that we are following the standards laid down by the British Standards Institution.
He said that the N.F.U. was worried about putting the onus on the manufacturer and that there was anxiety lest this might be ultra vires. I have taken the best legal advice I can on this question, which is one of some importance. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we originally included that in the draft, but we then found that that provision did not conform to the Act, and so we removed it. We were advised that it was ultra vires.
The simple answer lies in the Title to the Act, which says it relates to
the welfare of persons employed in agriculture
and the Act defines them as persons employed under contracts of service. It is impossible to say that the tractors will necessarily be used in agriculture. They may be equally suitable for use in land drainage or building operations. What is even more important is that it is impossible to say that tractors and machines driven by tractors, though their use in agriculture may reasonably be presumed, will be used solely by workers employed in agriculture. They may be used by self-employed farmers or members of farmers' families who are not under contracts of service. I am advised that the legal position therefore is that any Regulations of the kind contemplated, however worded, would inevitably extend to classes of persons for whose protection the Act was not passed.
This being so, there would be a grave risk of the Regulations being challenged by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and perhaps upset in the courts. That is the best legal advice that I have been able to obtain, and in the light of that advice I can see no possibility of seeking to include this requirement in the Regulations.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. I will not be absolutely bound by what he says in answer to my further question, but can he say whether he has consulted the Law Officers about this matter—or is it purely an opinion expressed within the Department? I fully appreciate the practical difficulties, but I think that they are surmountable. On the pure question whether this is ultra vires, have the Law Officers been consulted?

Mr. Godber: This is the advice of my own legal advisers. I am quite willing to consult the Law Officers on this point, but I think that it is perfectly clear and that it is undeniable that the words in the Long Title go a long way to making it impossible for us to include people other than those employed under a contract of service. I am quite willing to make such further inquiries as I can, but I am reasonably satisfied, on the advice that I am given, that it is impossible for us to do as the hon. Gentleman wishes.
The hon. Member also asked another very important point, in regard to the position of the workers upon whom a liability was being placed—a definite responsibility which does not occur under the Factories Acts. Here again, I have been very carefully into this question, and I should like again to give the views that I have ascertained from our legal advisers, because this is a very important point.
First, we should understand that, quite apart from the Act and the Regulations made thereunder, an employer, at common law, owes a worker in his employment an obligation to take care to see that he is not exposed to any unnecessary risk. This is usually expressed as a duty to provide a safe system of work. If a worker is injured in consequence of his employer's failure to observe this duty he can bring an action at common law for damages for negligence.
It is, however, open to the employer then to show that the worker was guilty


of contributory negligence, that is to say, that the worker was really to blame. If this defence succeeds the worker will lose his action, or if the court finds that the worker was only partly to blame it will direct that the worker shall recover only a proportion of the damages that he would have got if the employer had been wholly to blame.
The effect of the Act and the Regulations is to confer on the worker an additional cause of action, known as an action for breach of statutory duty. By virtue of this, if a worker is unable to show that his employer was guilty of negligence he can nevertheless succeed if he can establish that the accident was caused by the employer's failure to comply with the terms of the Regulations. To this class of action the defence of contributory negligence also applies, but in general it is true to say that the defence will not succeed if the contributory negligence complained of arises directly out of the employer's non-compliance with the Regulations—for example, if a factory worker lost his finger through contact with a circular saw which was unguarded.
To summarise, therefore, a worker's remedies at common law are in no way impaired, and the effect of the Regulations is to confer an additional remedy on the worker which he otherwise would not have, but this additional remedy does not enable him to recover damages as of right if the worker's conduct was the effective cause of the accident.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. The point I want to put is this: the employer may be clearly in breach of his statutory duty, in that he has caused or permitted to be used machinery without an adequate guard, but under the Regulations as they are at present drafted the worker is automatically in breach himself, because the Regulations provide that a worker employed in agriculture shall not use such a tractor. The worker is therefore prejudiced in his claim for damages because he is guilty of contributory negligence, I am sure that that is not what is intended in the Regulations and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this matter again. The usual provision about the burden being on the worker is that he shall not do certain things, and they are speci-

fied. But here, if we have a machine which is provided with a guard which the court finds to be inadequate, the worker who might sue at civil law will find that he is automatically up against this difficulty; because, under the Regulation, he is in breach of a statutory duty himself.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary look at this again? I should be grateful if he would, because, as things are, a worker might be prejudiced very much in a claim for damages.

Mr. Godber: I am not a lawyer, but if the worker can prove the negligence of the employer, then I should have thought that in spite of this, the contributory negligence point would be the same. However, I am perfectly willing to look again at the point, and to take advice on it, to confirm the view which I have tried to express.
Those, I think, were the two important points of substance and in both cases I am prepared to check on the advice which I have given; but that is the best advice which I have been able to obtain.

Mr. Wiley: I apologise for interrupting again, but will the Parliamentary Secretary say if there will be further consultations with the unions concerned?

Mr. Godber: We are perfectly happy to discuss with the unions at any time; but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have had very close consultation with the employers' and the workers' unions quite recently. Quite recently we have been in consultation with the workers' unions and I was not aware that they were dissatisfied. They have taken a statesmanlike view in the matter of the framing of the Regulations. We have been in close touch with the N.F.U. It did not go all the way with us, and I have already explained why we have not been able to meet it. I am, however, perfectly willing to arrange further talks with the N.F.U.
I think that that disposes of the points made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) referred to the question of manufacturers dealing with machines which are now in use. I do not think that we could expect manufacturers to accept obligations for machines which have been out of their


hands for many years. I would certainly hope that they would be interested in mass producing some of these guards, but there is a case here for some of the smaller manufacturers to step in and fill the gap. I am also advised that the large manufacturers have given the assurance that they will help in every way that they can in respect of these machines, and I hope that that will satisfy the point which the hon. Gentleman was worried about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said that in these Regulations we should specify what the safeguards are to be. I would refer him to what my predecessor, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), said last year in answer to points made by my hon. Friend when the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Measure was before the House. My predecessor then said:
In these regulations we shall specify what safeguards, guards, and so on, are to be employed, and that will in effect prevent a manufacturer who fails to conform with those regulations from selling his particular machinery because it would be an offence for the farmer to use it".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th March, 1956; cols. 24–25.]
Those words stand today and are identical with what I have been saying. Given these Regulations, farmers will not buy a machine which does not comply with them. There is no discrepancy between what was said in Standing Committee and what I have been saying this evening.
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) dealt with the point of certain matters being ultra vires; that, I think, I have answered fairly fully. He had another point about the length of time. He asked why there should be a delay of twelve months. All the arguments we have had adduced to us were that we were not giving enough time. Anyway, most of the tractors are now fitted with these safeguards and it will not make much material difference. While we sympathise with the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, we felt it was reasonable to give a fair measure of time.
I have tried to deal with the points raised. I hope that after my explanations the House will be willing to approve these Regulations, which will be a valuable step forward in making work on our farms safe. I am grateful for the helpful comments.

Mr. Dye: Can the hon. Gentleman give attention to my suggestion that a simple form of the Regulations could be widely circulated, so that they are known on the farms?

Mr. Godber: We will give the matter the utmost publicity. It is most important that everybody concerned should know about this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Agriculture (Power Take-off) Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

Draft Agriculture (Ladders) Regulations, 1957 [Copy laid before the House, 10th July], approved.—[Mr. Godber.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Resolved,
That, in pursuance of the provisions of section three of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1948, the amount of the sums to be deducted or set aside from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons under subsection (3) of section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, shall be varied as from the date of this resolution as follows:—
In the said subsection (3) which provides for the rate of deduction from each payment of the salary of a Member of the House of Commons for the word 'twelve' there shall be substituted the ward 'eighteen'".—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH ARMY (AMALGAMATION OF UNITS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

11.23 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: If stories in the Press are to be believed, within a few days the Government will announce their proposals for the reorganisation of the Army. The point I raise now is the amalgamation of infantry units which must follow from the Government's proposals.
There are 64 regiments of the line, plus 10 Guards' regiments, a total of 74. It is clear that the Government are faced with a critical decision that regiments with great traditions of long and historic service in all parts of the world, in difficult


and easy times, have to be amalgamated. The decision is bound to cause grave disquiet and protests, some of which have already appeared on the Order Paper.
Hon. Members from all parts of the country have tabled Motions calling attention to this or that regiment, in one case in such terms as to pay tribute to their hearts rather than to their heads. One might take the actual wording of the Motions, apply it to every regiment, and ask the Government to give most serious consideration before they take the final decision to amalgamate the units or perhaps to obliterate them.
What I want to do tonight is, first, to ask the Government when they make the announcement about changes not to do it in a hurried statement at the end of Questions, but to publish a White Paper and, in that White Paper, to make perfectly clear the principles which have influenced them in coming to this decision. I ask them to publish, or republish, in that White Paper the 1951 Corps Warrant. I do not think hon. Members can understand the situation unless they look at the Corps Warrant and the situation at present. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to publish the dates at which the regiments were formed and their present depots.
When we have that picture and recognise the manpower situation of the Army as it is at present, never mind what it will be in future, we shall see that we cannot sustain the present number of battalions. Something has to go and those who want to protest will at least have a little more idea of what they are protesting about than would appear from some of the Motions on the Order Paper and protests in the Press. I started on that basis myself and I have come to certain conclusions about the Government's decision. I could make a forecast as to what will happen and, if I have time, perhaps I shall indicate some of the regiments which, I think, will have to go.
I live in Staffordshire and I think it is an absolute certainty that in the Mercian Brigade, which contains the Cheshire Regiment, the Worcestershire Regiment, the North Staffordshire Regiment and the South Staffordshire Regiment, the North Staffordshire and the South Staffordshire Regiments should be amalgamated. I think that would be a commonsense

decision. Although I would regret it, and many people in Staffordshire and in my constituency would regret it, it seems a commonsense decision.
I also think that hon. Members who have protested by Motions on the Order Paper about the amalgamation or abolition of the Durham Light Infantry are worrying themselves needlessly. That regiment has a first-class recruiting record and a first-class fighting record. I should have thought the Durhams are fairly safe, but what I want to argue is that that is not the consideration. One of the great weaknesses ever since this Government have been in office, ever since they restored the second battalions in a moment of what I might call passionate crisis, has been that the world has seen innumerable British regiments which were scarcely able to move their own baggage. If there is one way of making absolutely sure that that the Bill is at its highest and the defence contribution at its lowest, it is to have large numbers of regiments below establishment.
I say quite frankly that I doubt very much whether the recruiting figures as they will be in future will be even sufficient to maintain the number of regiments which it would seem it is the intention of the Government to preserve. It is my view—and, again this appears to be borne out by the stories going around—that the 64 regiments of the Line, including the Rifle Brigade, they are to be reduced to 50, which means the amalgamation of at least 28. If one looks at the statement of the Secretary of State for War on the Second Reading of the Army Enlistment Bill, one sees that he told us he would be retaining the 3-yeas engagement in the Guards and a number of ancillary units and hoped to get 1,000 men from that source, but he cannot possibly maintain 10 battalions of Guards at a competent establishment on the basis of a recruiting level of somewhere between 750 to 1,000. It just will not work, however optimistic his advisers may be. What I am afraid of is that the Government, because of the pressures which will be exercised in this House and in the Press, will not make sufficient cuts.
During an Adjournment debate just about a year ago I forecast that our recruiting figure would be about 12,000 a year. I still believe that figure to be right. What number the Government are


ultimately able to recruit will depend upon the number of years for which they can get the men to enlist. I fear that the 50 battalions will not be able to be maintained at an effective level. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not be dissuaded by any pressure from the course of action which their duty indicates.
My purpose tonight is to try to set out some of the considerations, the extent of the problem, and to fortify the Government against what I regard as irresponsible pressure. It may well be that next week, when the Government's intentions are announced, every hon. Member in the House will have pressure put upon him from the area which he represents to maintain this, that or the other regiment when all experience shows that to do so would be a piece of nonsense.
Some hon. Members will be going to their constituencies this week-end. Perhaps I could fortify them with an argument or two. This will not be the first time in our history that protests have been made about the designation of regiments. I looked up a Motion moved by the Earl of Galloway in 1881, when the Government announced their intention to do away with the numerical designation and to use a territorial designation.
The Earl of Galloway's Motion was:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause a reconsideration of the proposal to efface the present numerical and other distinctions in regiments of the line and Militia by the substitution of novel (so-called) 'territorial' titles inasmuch as this proposed substitution is known to be viewed as subversive of esprit de corps."
Of course, when one goes back seventy or eighty years before that one finds that there was a combination of both numerical and territorial designations—the 1st of Foot the Royal Scots, for example—and that there were similar protests.
The Army is a conservative institution, but, of course, this is a very delicate matter. It is something more than just surface feeling. There is an intensity of feeling, especially on the part of men who have fought and whose relatives have fought and perhaps died in these regiments. We have now reached the stage in our affairs where in the matter of de-

fence we must get value for money. In the future we just shall not be able to afford the price of sentiment, a consequence of which, as I say, is that a very large number of regiments are under establishment.
I promised to give the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), a ration of my time and I will not let him down. I have indicated that the starting of my thinking on this point is about the 1951 Corps Warrant. If hon. Members will start from that point they will be driven irresistibly, as I am, to the conclusion that changes are absolutely inevitable.
I should like the Under-Secretary to take back to his right hon. Friend another factor, perhaps the decisive factor, which should be included in the White Paper that I hope the Government will publish. It is that the recruiting figures must be linked up with the practice in the corps area. This is absolutely fundamental.
If we look at the Midland Brigade we find that the recruiting of the Warwicks and the Lincolns, the Leicesters and the Sherwood Foresters is not very good, and it would seem inevitable that there the last formed will have to be amalgamated. Again, recruiting is not good in the Home Counties Brigade. I do not know whether that the link up will be between the two Surrey regiments, or the West and East Kents. I do not envy the right hon. Gentleman his task if he proposes that the Buffs should be amalgamated with the West Kents. If he does make that proposal, I suggest that he does so en route for the Continent.
Recruiting for the Anglian Brigade is not good, but perhaps I had better not make a suggestion there, although I could. Likewise, there is the Yorkshire and Northumberland Brigade. Heaven knows what will happen to the hon. Gentleman if the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has to be told that the "Fighting Fifth," the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, have to be amalgamated. I can only wish the Minister the best of luck.
It seems to me that the West and East Yorkshires, and one or two other Yorkshire regiments are not producing the recruits necessary to maintain their battalions. In the Lowland Brigade, too, I think that amalgamations will have to


take place, and that the K.O.S.B.s and the Cameronians would be candidates. Then there is the Highland Brigade—what is to happen to that? I would have thought that the Seaforths and the Camerons would have to amalgamate. Here, again, I am sentimental, because some of my own relations have served in the 91st of Foot—the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Nevertheless, it would seem that neither the Highland nor the Lowland Brigades can continue as at present.
Then there is the Lancastrian Brigade. Some of the Lancashire regiments seem to call out for amalgamation, because recruiting in Lancashire is poor. There is one double regiment depot—the East Lancs. and the Loyals—so perhaps those regiments will amalgamate. In the Wessex Brigade, recruiting is bad, and it would seem that, possibly, the Devon-shires, the Dorsets—and even the Wilt-shires—will call for similar treatment. The Light Infantry Brigade is something else for the right hon. Gentleman to play with. That is a functional organisation rather than strictly territorial, but it would certainly seem that the Light Infantry is not finding sufficient recruits.
That brings me to the Brigade of Guards. I have been critical of the Brigade of Guards in the past, but 1 should greatly regret it if any hon. Member came here and said that there the first formed should be the first to go. I hope that that will be resisted in all parts of the House. This illustrates what I want to say. The Welsh Guards were the last to be formed—in 1915—and, before them, the Irish Guards, in 1901. The Irish Guards have a magnificent recruiting record. If anyone, on the basis of egalitarianism, tries to get rid of those two Guards regiments they will be making a fundamental mistake.
What is done here has to be linked with future recruiting. As I say, I am pessimistic about the Government's recruiting prospects. I am pessimistic about my right hon. Friend's recruiting prospects. I would use words that appeared in The Times this week, used by Mr. Sidney Rogerson, who gave excellent service as public relations officer at the War Office. He said that the recruiting figures had been depressing, and were now becoming disquieting.
My excuse for troubling the House at this very late hour is to plead with the Minister to "come clean" to publish all the facts, to try to educate public opinion to military reality; and to plead with every hon. Member who has any regard for the Army—and, if he has not, has some regard for the size of the bill—to see that the Government's proposals are looked at on their merits, and not on the basis of "phoney" sentimentality.

11.40 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for allowing me a few moments in which to speak before the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that in the speech he has just delivered, though the touch was that of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, the voice was that of the Royal Army Educational Corps. I certainly feel that the hon. Gentleman has served a very useful purpose in raising the matter tonight. However, I must say, as the grandson of a Coldstreamer and son of a Coldstreamer, that if he looks back into history he will find that, so far from being the last to be formed, the Welsh Guards have a claim to be regarded as the first, because the bowmen who won Agincourt were, in fact, the Welsh Guards of Henry V. That, from a Household Cavalryman, is saying a lot, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) would agree.
I have carefully avoided putting a Motion on the Order Paper regarding the regiments of the county which I have the honour to reside in and to represent in this House; the Isle of Ely is part of Cambridgeshire, and the Cambridge-shire Regiment is the county regiment in the Isle of Ely. The Cambridgeshire Regiment is a Territorial regiment.
There are some counties which have no direct association with the Army other than through their Territorial regiments. Whatever arrangements are made in the forthcoming White Paper, which, with the hon. Member for Dudley, I hope will be published next Wednesday, I hope that there still will remain some direct link between all counties and the British Army. I was very interested to


hear from the hon. Member the suggestion of giving to each regiment a numerical title, and he reminded us, quite rightly, that, for a long time, the regiments had as their principal title a numerical title only.
I think that there may be a case for returning to that system in the new arrangement, because there are some counties which would never regard an amalgamation with any other county as anything but purely a nominal matter which had no real significance. I have a feeling that there may be a case for saying that, in the new organisation, it would be better to give each regiment a numerical title, if it really means two counties, or, in some cases, perhaps three, which have been amalgamated, disappearing, in fact, from the regimental point of view. The hon. Member for Dudley rightly reminded us that many of the regiments were proud of their number; the Fighting Fifth was one example.
East Anglia has two counties which I doubt will ever agree on anything, no matter how long we may try to get them to do so. I refer to Norfolk and Suffolk. The Territorial Regiment of Cambridgeshire has had some association with the Suffolk Regiment. I want to see the association between Cambridgeshire and the British Army maintained. I am not quite certain whether it would be better maintained by having some combination with the Norfolk and Suffolk Regiments, with a Territorial attachment of the Cambridgeshire Regiment, or whether it would be better to give a new numerical title to the whole lot. I am inclined to think that, if we are to take the plunge, we might as well really do so from the high diving board rather than go in feeling our way with our toes.

11.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): I hope that what I have to say will meet some of the points my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has raised, even if they do not altogether support the thesis which emerged from his last sentence.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) expressed, I think, a rather pessimistic view on the prospects of recruiting, whether by the present Government or by

any further one. He struck a somewhat Cassandra-like note—I refer to the Trojan lady, not the columnist in the Daily Mirror. I hope that events will prove him wrong, and I am sure that he hopes it himself.
The argument which we are discussing tonight is simple enough. In accordance with the policy laid down in the Defence White Paper, the Army is to be reduced to about half its present size. This reduction will involve major changes in the organisation, structure and order of battle of the Army. It will also mean a major reduction in the number of units and, where the infantry and the cavalry are concerned, in the number of regiments. To bring about this reduction is in itself a fairly big staff exercise, as the hon. Member, with his knowledge of the War Office, will appreciate.
But it is also a matter of the closest personal concern to all officers and men serving in the Regular Army. And not to them alone. Any cut in regiments is bound to be felt by retired officers, by their familiies and by all those local forces outside the Army who are, nevertheless, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, very proud of their association with their county regiment.
We are touching here a vital nerve in the life of the country. Few things go deeper. Accordingly, we in the War Office have approached this problem of reductions with the greatest care and, I hope, with the greatest understanding and respect for the strong loyalties that are at stake. We have looked at every aspect of it closely and given full weight to all those vital considerations of morale, efficiency, operational flexibility and career stability. I can say with confidence that there have been no snap decisions.
Of course, there have been a lot of rumours, in the Press and outside it. The hon. Member for Dudley may have started a few more tonight with his forecast of what he thinks will happen. He has paraded some suggestions of what the reorganisation will be and he has given certain figures. I do not know whether the hon. Member is doing a service to the Army in making these forecasts at the present time. We have always given the hon. Member credit for having the best interests of the Army at heart, but I wonder whether he was


really wise in putting down his Motion. I wonder whether it was a good thing to hold up these things, which mean so much to so many people, as a kind of public jest. I do not even know whether it was wise to initiate this debate tonight.
The Government will publish their decisions next week, as the hon. Member knows, and there will be a White Paper setting out in detail both what we are doing and the reasons why we are doing it. I should have thought that if there was to be criticism and comment, then would be the time; but I do not want to overstress the point.

Mr. Wigg: Of course, that is a consideration, but the Government have chosen to publish the White Paper within a week of rising for the Summer Recess. If I had not had the Adjournment debate tonight, it seems to me long odds that there would have been no discussion of this problem at all.

Mr. Amery: If the hon. Member does not think that the official spokesman for the Opposition would have found the time—because there will be opportunities—that is not for me to judge. Anyway, I would not want to take that argument too seriously.
I do not think that rumours and speculation will do much harm to the

Army and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman believes it either. These things are part of the price we pay for a free society and we in the War Office pay it just as cheerfully as other sections of the community. By and large, the British soldier is not such a sensitive plant that he will bend or break under the breeze of rumour.
The only real damage that could be done—and that would be lasting damage—would be if it was ever felt that the Army Council or the Government had taken snap decisions; if it was ever felt that the fate of famous regiments had been decided without a close study of all the arguments for and against; if it was ever felt that obvious and avoidable mistakes had been made.
As I say, my right hon. Friend will bring the decisions before the House next week and will lay a White Paper. The hon. Member will not, therefore, expect me to anticipate those decisions in any way tonight and he will, I hope, understand if I leave unanswered most of the questions he has raised and most of the points which he has made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.